APTD-1164
GUIDE
TO ENGINEERING
PERMIT
PROCESSING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Programs
Stationary Source Pollution Control Programs
Research Triajftgie Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
APTD-1164
GUIDE
TO
ENGINEERING PERMIT PROCESSING
Prepared by
Arnold Stein
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
2932 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, California 90403
for
System Development Corporation
EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Programs
Stationary Source Pollution Control Programs
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
July 1972
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data-) series of reports is issued by
the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of interest
to a limited number of readers. Copies of APTD reports are available free
of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and
nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution
Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by the
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Santa Monica, California in fulfill-
ment of EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122. The contents of this report are
reproduced herein as received from the Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication Number APTD-1164
-------
Ill
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Much of the information presented in this guide was obtained from interviews
and material supplied by staff members of State and Local air pollution con-
trol agencies as a part of the field work performed under CPA 70-122, Task
Order 2. The authors are particularly indebted to the following agencies
and individuals:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
H.H. Hovey, Jr. S. Marlow
R.N. Gummings A. Risman
R.K. Warland F. Austin
State of New York Department of Labor - Division of Industrial
Hygiene
I. Kingsley
The City of New York, Department of Air Resources
A. Pieratti S.J. Pascual
J. Coyle
State of Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control
G. Humbert E.E. Ellis
R.L. Peyton D.G- Frier
F.S. Kleeman D. Scott
Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control
H.J. Schmitz D. Cox
A. Bagnato E. Cahill
Kentucky Air Pollution Control Commission
F. Partee J. Sullivan
-------
IV
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District
H. Simon W.C. Rogers
R.L. Weimer N.R. Shaffer
State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
J. Roberts K.J. Conklin
City of Chicago, Department of Environmental Control
E.W. Linna T. Kason
E.J. Petkus
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection
H. Wortreich J. Bowe
The authors also wish to thank D. Forehand, N. Edmisten, and R. Morrison
(project officer), EPA-OAP, Control Agency Procedures Branch for the
individual guidance and assistance given in supplying the information
required in the preparation of this guide.
-------
FOREWORD
This first edition of the Guide to Engineering Permit Processing describes the
development and administration of procedures that can be adopted to evaluate
and to approve (or deny) the use of industrial equipment and processes that are
capable of emitting contaminants into the general atmosphere.
The Guide treats the design and administration of permit systems, engineering
evaluation of pollutant sources and equipment inspection procedures, and methods
for acquiring and processing technical and legal information on the sources
of air pollution.
The permit system is a major philosophy of control that goes to the heart of
any conscientious effort to control air pollution. It is the principal means
by which an air pollution control agency can systematically control the col-
lective emissions of the stationary source population within its jurisdiction.
It provides specific first-hand.information on the performance of equipment
and processes obtained from owners and operators that would not otherwise be
available. It further establishes clear goals and procedures for enforcement
personnel and owners and operators to follow in achieving the community air
quality desired.
The feasibility and effectiveness of the permit system have been demonstrated
by air pollution control agencies and other regulatory bodies that have
administered similar systems for many years. At the same time, the concept
of the permit system provides considerable latitude in designing systems that
will meet the needs of environmental control agencies regardless of their size
or resources available.
Mel Weisburd
Project Manager
CPA 70-122, Task Order 2
-------
VI
CONTENTS
III. OBJECTIVES OF THE PERMIT SYSTEM
A. Source Registration
B. The Permit System
C. Selection of Source Approval Systems
CHAPTER 1. THE PERMIT SYSTEM ................... 1'1
I. INTRODUCTION ........................ 1'1
II. DEFINITION OF THE PERMIT SYSTEM ............... 1<2
1<3
A. Compliance Plans ................... .• '
B. Emission Inventories ........... ....... 1*^
IV. COMPARISION OF SOURCE REGISTRATION AND PERMIT SYSTEM .... 1.5
V. PERMIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ................. 1-8
VI. MANPOWER NEEDED TO OPERATE A PERMIT SYSTEM ......... 1.18
VII. PERMIT FEES ........................ 1.19
REFERENCES ............................. 1.23
CHAPTER 2. PERMIT PROCESSING STEPS ................ 2.1
I. PROCESSING ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM ............. 2.1
A. Notification to Owner or Operator ............ 2.1
B. Document Distribution .................. 2.4
C. Voluntary and Enforced Response ............ 2.7
D. Receiving and Checking the Application ......... 2.20
E. Engineering Review .................. 2.20
F. Engineering Inspection ................. 2.26
G. Permit Application Equipment Status .......... 2.29
H. Issuance of the Permit ................. 2.30
I. Informal Hearing .................... 2.30
J. Hearing Board Decisions ................. 2.34
K. Court Decisions .................... 2.36
-------
Vll
Page
II. INTERFACES WITH OTHER CONTROL AGENCY FUNCTIONS 2.38
A. Data Requirements 2.40
B. Data Outputs 2.41
REFERENCES 2.42
CHAPTER 3. DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3.1
I. INTRODUCTION 3.1
!
II. SPECIFICATION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3 ..1
III. ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM 3.2
A. Data Base Design 3.2
B. Data Preparation 3.5
C. Data Base Updates 3.6
D. Data Retrieval 3.7
E. Turnaround 3.8
F.. Documentation 3.9
IV. DATA V'EMENTS 3.9
A. Application Data Components 3.10
B. Permit Classification and Unitization .... 3.11
C. Classification of Equipment 3.14
D. Additional Data Elements 3.15
V. APPLICATION FORMS DESIGN 3.17
VI. FILE STRUCTURE 3.27
A. Manual File 3.27
B. Automated Files 3.28
VII. PERMIT PROCESSING INFORMATION SYSTEMS 3.29
A. Special Purpose Software Programs 3.30
B. KAPCIS 3.31
C. Information Management Systems 3.35
D. Available Systems 3.38
E. Example of the Use of an Information Management System . 3.39
VIII. COMPUTER PROCESSING 3.50
A. Batch Processing 3.50
B. Time-Sharing 3.54
-------
Vlll
Page
•5 f^fi
C. Remote Batch
3 57
IX. DATA ENTRY SYSTEMS
o 58
A. Keypunching 3*60
B. Key-to-Tape Systems ',,
C. Key-to-Disk •* * ' 3*64
D. Optical Character Recognition Systems
X. MICROFILM 3'66
XI. COST-EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION ' 3'69
REFERENCES 3t73
CHAPTER 4. APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL PROHIBITION TO PERMIT
PROCESSING 4.1
I. INTRODUCTION
II. NUISANCE ........................... 4-2
A. Odors .......................... 4.2
B. Material Deposits .................... 4.3
III. EMISSION LIMITATIONS ..................... 4.4
A. Emission Standards .................. ..4.8
B. Equipment Standards ................... 4.8
C. Process Standards ..................... 4.10
D. Industry Standards ..................... 4.12
E. Zoning .................... ....... 4.13
REFERENCES .............................. 4.16
CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT ....................... 5.1
I. INTRODUCTION ..................... .... 5.1
II. PERMIT APPLICATION HANDLING .................. 5.1
III. EVALUATION PROCEDURE ..................... 5.4
A. Basic Equipment and Operating Data ............ 5.5
B. Description of the Air Pollution Control System ..... 5.8
-------
IX
Page
IV. METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 5.9
A. Assessment of the Air Pollution Potential of the Basic
Equipment or Processes 5.9
B. Calculations . . . 5.10
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.17
VI. CONSULTATIONS TO REMEDY MINOR DEFECTS 5.18
VII. USE OF COMPUTERS FOR ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS 5.19
A. Introduction 5.19
B. Types of Systems 5.19
C. Prototype Mini-Computer System 5.21
D. Engineering Evaluation Diffusion Program 5.29
E. Incinerator Program 5.38
REFERENCES 5.47
CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLES OF PERMIT REVIEWS 6.1
I. INTRODUCTION , 6.1
II. SAMPLE PROBLEMS 6.2
A. Sulfuric Acid Plant 6.2
B. Coal Fired Boiler with an Electrostatic Precipitator. . . 6.10
C. Lithograph Oven Venting to an Afterburner 6.22
D. Municipal Incinerator with an Electrostatic Precipitator. 6.26
E. Baghouse for a Cement Kiln 6.33
F. Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plant Served by a Multiple-
Cyclone and Baghouse 6.38
G. Brass Reverberatory Furnace and Baghouse 6.44
H. Grey Iron Cupola and Baghouse 6.50
I. Gasoline Storage and Transfer System 6.59
J. Two Dry Rendering Cookers Venting to a Contact Condenser
and Vapor Incinerator 6.69
K. Triple Superphosphate Plant 6.74
L. Ammonium Nitrate 6.81
M. Sewage Sludge Incinerator 6.86
III. SPECIAL FORMS FOR PROCESSING PERMIT APPLICATIONS 6.90
A. Storage Tanks 6.90
B. Exhaust Systems 6.90
C. Industrial Processes 6.94
-------
Page
ft QA
IV. PROTOTYPE COMPUTER ASSISTED CALCULATION PACKAGE °'7H
REFERENCES 6.109
CHAPTER 7. ENGINEERING INSPECTION OF EQUIPMENT FOR CERTIFICATE
TO OPERATE 7tl
I. INTRODUCTION 7-1
II. ENGINEERING INSPECTION REPORT 7'1
A. Preparing for the Inspection ''•*
B. Basic Information Recorded During the Inspection .... 7.4
C. Description of Equipment 7'^
D. Process Description and Discussion '•"
E. Detail Points of Emissions 7-10
F. Estimate of Emissions and Discussion of Observation. . . 7.11
G. Recommendations for Source Testing 7.12
H. Conclusions and Recommendations 7.14
I. • Field Inspection Forms 7.15
REFERENCES 7.21
APPENDIX 1. WORK UNITS FOR PERMIT PROCESSING
APPENDIX 2. JOB AND TASK ANALYSIS OF THE NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF AIR RESOURCES
APPENDIX 3. EXCERPTS OF RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE
TO THE PERMIT SYSTEM
-------
XI
Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.5,
Figure 1.6.
Figure 1.7.
Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.13.
Figure 2.14.
Figure 2.15.
Figure 2.16.
Figure 2.17.
Figure 2.18.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Schematic Reproduction of Analysis for 1.9
Engineering Manpower for a Permit System
Alternatives for State Permit Systems 1.12
State of New Jersey - Department of Environmental 1.13
Protection
Typical Division of Responsibilities Between State and 1.14
Local Air Pollution Control Agencies
Typical Organization Chart for a Local Governmental Air 1.17
Pollution Agency
Generalized Distribution of Functional Activities for 1.20
Regulatory Agencies Anticipated for 1974
City of Chicago Air Pollution Equipment Permit Fee 1.22
Information
Permit System Processing Elements 2.2
Agency Letter Mailed with Application Forms 2.6
Permit Application Information 2.8
Application for the Approval of an Exhaust System Plan 2.10
Instructions for Filing an Exhaust System Plan 2.12
Application for Permit to Construct 2.14
Instructions for Filing a Permit to Construct 2.16
Application for Certificate to Operate 2.18
Instructions for Filing a Certificate to Operate 2.19
Steps in Receiving and Checking in a Permit 2.21
Application
Letter Requesting Additional Information 2.22
Steps in the Engineering Review Process 2.24
Plan Disapproval Letter 2.25
The Engineering Inspection Process 2.27
Sample Permit to Construct 2.31
Sample Certificate to Operate (City Agency) 2.32
Sample Certificate to Operate (State Agency) 2.33
Information Flow in an Air Pollution Control Agency 2.39
-------
XI1
Figure 3.1. Permit System Data Base
O I Q
Figure 3.2. Special Application Form for Storage Tanks
3 20
Figure 3.3. General Application Form
Figure 3.4. Special Instructions Sheet for Completing Storage
Tank Application Form
Figure 3.5. General Instructions for Completing Application Forms 3.22
Figure 3.6. Application Form Compatible with Data Processing 3.25
Figure 3.7. Example of a Specific Record Retrieval 3.34
Figure 3.8. Example of a File Scan Retrieval 3'36
Figure 3.9. Specific Data Retrieval 3t^°
Figure 3.10. Logical Data Retrievals 3'43
Figure 3.11. Statistical Data Retrieval 3'45
Figure 3.12. Report Generation 3.47
Figure 3.13. Sample Report 3.48
Figure 3.14. A Single-Task Batch Processing System 3.51
Figure 3.15. A Multiple-Task Batch Processing System 3.53
Figure 3.16. Operation of Typical Keypunch Data Entry System 3.59
Figure 3.17. Operation of Typical Key-to-Tape Data Entry System 3.62
Figure 3.18. Operation of a Complete Key-to-Tape Data Preparation
and Entry System 3.63
Figure 3.19. Operation of a Complete Key-to-Disk Data Preparation
and Entry System 3.65
Figure 3.20. Operation of an OCR Data Entry System 3.67
Figure 3.21. System Capabilities Check-Off List 3.70
Figure 5.1. Background to Escape Velocity and Exhaust Rate Problem
with Manual Type Solution 5.23
Figure 5.2. Escape Velocity and Exhaust Rate Computer Program
in BASIC 5.25
Figure 5.3. Flowchart of Program to Find Exhaust Rate and
Escape Velocity from a Hood . 5.26
Figure 5.4. Computer Program Execution to Calculate the Escape
Velocity and Exhaust Rate of Hood—Modified to
Reduce Input/Output Time 5.28
-------
Xlll
Page
Figure 5.5. Alternate Version of BASIC Computer Program to
Calculate the Escape Velocity and Exhaust
Rate of a Hood 5.30
Figure 5.6. Computer Program Execution of Calculation of
Escape Velocity and Exhaust Rate of Hood 5.31
Figure 5.7. Horizontal Dispersion Coefficient as a Function of
Downwind Distance from the Source 5.35
Figure 5.8. Vertical Dispersion Coefficient as a Function of
Downwind Distance from the Source 5.36
Figure 5.9. Diffusion Program Flowchart 5.39
Figure 5.10. Flow of PIF2 Subroutine 5.40
Figure 5.11. Installation Permit Application for Incinerators 5.42
Figure 5.12. Incinerator Evaluation Computer Program 5.44
Figure 5.13. Computer Print-out of Incinerator Evaluation Program 5.46
Figure 6.1.- Schematic Flow Diagram Dual Absorption Contact H- SO, 6.3
Figure 6.2. Schematic of Exhaust System and Electrostatic
Precipitator Serving a Coal Fired Boiler 6.11
Figure 6.3. Relationship Between Collection Efficiency and
Collecting Surface Area to Gas Flow Ratio for
Various Coal Sulfur Contents 6.16
Figure 6.4. Variation in Precipitation Rate Parameter with
Sulfur Content of the Coal 6.17
Figure 6.5. Relationship Between Collection Efficiency and
Corona Power for Fly Ash Precipitators
(test result) 6.19
Figure 6.6. Variation in Efficiency with Degree of Sectionalization 6.20
Figure 6.7. Schematic Flow Diagram of Air Pollution Control System
for Lithograph Oven 6.23
Figure 6.8. Flow Schematic for an Exhaust System with Electrostatic
Precipitator Serving a Municipal Incinerator 6.28
Figure 6.9. Variation in Precipitation Rate Parameter with Gas
Temperature for Municipal Incinerator Precipitators 6.30
Figure 6.10. Relationship Between Collection Efficiency and Delivered
Corona Power for Municipal Incinerators 6.32
Figure 6.11. Flow Schematic of an Exhaust System and Baghouse for
a Cement Kiln ' 6.34
-------
XIV
Page
Figure 6.12. Flow Schematic of Exhaust System for a Baghouse
Serving a Hot Asphalt Plant
Figure 6.13. Exhaust System Schematic for a Baghouse Serving
a Brass Furnace
Figure 6.14. Dust & Fume Collection System for Grey Iron Cupola 6.51
Figure 6.15. Schematic Flow Diagram of a Vaporsaver Unit used for
Recovery of Loading Rack Vapors at a Bulk Gasoline
Terminal 6>6°
Figure 6.16. Schematic of Condenser & Afterburner Serving two
Dry Rendering Coolers 6.70
Figure 6.17. Continuous Process for the Manufacture of Granular
Triplesuperphosphate 6.75
Figure 6.18. Flow Diagram for Manufacture of Ammonium Nitrate 6.82
Figure 6.19- Flow Sheet of a Typical Plant with Multiple Hearth
Incinerator 6.87
Figure 6.20. Processing Form for Gasoline Storage Tanks 6.91
Figure 6.21. Processing Form for Exhaust Systems 6.92
Figure 6.22. Resistance and Air Flow Values for Exhaust Systems 6.93
Figure 6.23. Application Form for Industrial Processes 6.95
Figure 6.24. Program Listing - Computer Assisted Calculated Package 6.97
Figure 6.25. Input Sheet for Prototype System 6.102
Figure 6.26. Flowchart - Computer Assisted Calculated Package 6.103
Figure 6.27. Prototype Equipment Evaluation Package 6.106
Figure 7.1. Flowchart of Engineering Inspection for Certificate
to Operate 7.2
Figure 7.2. Schematic of Hot Asphalt Batch Plant 7.7
Figure 7.3. Field Report Form, Dust and Fumes, Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District 7.17
Figure 7.4. Field Report Form, Opacity Reading, Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District 7.18
Figure 7.5. Field Report Form, Spray Booths, Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District 7.19
Figure 7.6. Field Report Form, Degreaser, Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District 7.20
-------
XV
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. Equipment Status Types and Possible Agency 2.29
Requirements
Table 3.1. Information Management Systems 3.39
Table 4.1. Emission Limits Attainable by Available Technology 4.5
Table 4.2. Process Weight Table 4.9
Table 5.1. Permit System Activity Chart 5.2
Table 5.2. Item Descriptions for Escape Velocity and Exhaust
Rate Computer Program 5.27
Table 5.3. Key to Stability Classes 5.37
-------
CHAPTER 1
THE PERMIT SYSTEM
I. INTRODUCTION
The attainment of a desired level of air quality depends on the reduction
of air contaminant emissions that contribute to the existing air quality.
The methods available to reduce these emissions are limited to three broad
types of administrative functions: enforcement of rules and regulations,
implementation of source registration and source approval systems, and
promotion of voluntary control by the owners and operators of the sources
of air pollution.
The effectiveness of these methods depends on implementing them in ways,
that will assure that emission abatement is accomplished in a comprehensive
and systematic manner and with minimum uncertainty. This requirement pre-
sents problems for control agencies that are responsible for regulating
large and variable source populations, particularly in communities under-
going rapid growth.
The promotion of voluntary control through information and education
activities, while important, is too slow and uncertain a process to be
counted on in meeting implementation plan schedules. Code enforcement
through source registration, compliance scheduling, field surveillance
and inspection is essential, but by itself does not ensure systematic,
comprehensive compliance, or the solution of complex engineering problems
that may be at the heart of many cases of noncompliance.
The permit system is specifically intended as a systematic means of not
only achieving mass compliance, but, just as important, preventing the
future growth in contaminant emissions. The permit system is a method
which accounts for all factors (e.g., design, operation, maintenance, and
administrative) that must be considered in controlling any given source of
air pollution.
-------
1.2
II. DEFINITION OF THE PEBMII SYSTEM
The permit system provides for review of plans for construction, modification
or operation of stationary source equipment or processes that have the po-
tential to emit air contaminants. An application for a permit from an owner
is required in advance of construction or operation of the equipment or
process. The application provides the information necessary to evaluate
the potential emissions from the equipment. Permits (or certificates) to
construct or to operate are issued if, after thorough evaluation, inspection
and source testing, it can be demonstrated that emissions will meet the
standards of the agency throughout anticipated ranges and conditions of
equipment operation. In some instances, permits are conditioned to assure
that certain operational and maintenance practices are adhered to in the
routine operation of the equipment.
The distinguishing features of permit systems are: (1) the clearly defined
authority such systems have over the construction and operation of aj.1
equipment capable of emitting air contaminants; (2) the clarity and specific])
of the standards that must be complied with and the procedures that owners
must follow in submitting applications; and (3) the amount and type of
technical information that must be supplied by the owner of affected equip-
ment to permit source evaluation and to assure compliance with regulations.
Marked reductions in emissions from stationary sources have occurred whereveil
permit systems have been implemented. The State of New Jersey, for example,
reported an estimated reduction of 445 thousand tons per year of particulates
213 thousand tons per year of sulfur compounds, and 178 thousand tons per
year of solvents, vapors, acids, and other contaminants over the period June
1967 to December 1968. These values are based upon estimates of contaminant
that would have been emitted into the atmosphere from new or modified equip-
ment without the installation of controls obtained through the application
of a permit system.
-------
1.3
Precedent for permit systems may be found in the building codes instituted
by legislatures as safety checks, and by zoning departments to regulate
building use, styles and exterior design. These codes are based on either
performance or specification standards. (Performance standards are result-
oriented and specification standards are design-oriented.) Either approach
may form the basis for an air pollution control plan to review and regulate
stationary sources.
Permit and plan review systems have been conducted by several air pollution
control agencies for many years. Recently, a number of states have begun
to develop or expand systems of this type. In recognizing the effectivenes
of this approach, the Environmental Protection Agency has required that
agencies obtain authority to "prevent construction, modification or oper-
ation of any stationary source at any location where emissions from such
2
sources will prevent the attainment or maintenance of national standards."
III. OBJECTIVES OF THE PERMIT SYSTEM
In addition to preventing the installation of equipment with inadequate
air pollution controls, permit systems serve to develop and maintain a
comprehensive data base which provides an invaluable inventory of companies,
equipment, processes, emissions and design information, serves as a source
for data verification, and ensures the implementation of source reduction
programs. The primary objectives of the system are:
A. Compliance Plans
The permit system is a mechanism for achieving compliance with the
s
standards of the air pollution control agency and monitoring progress
made in controlling stationary sources. Compliance plans are negotiated
documents, agreed to by an industrial establishment and an air pollution
control agency, which schedule the operating changes and equipment
-------
1.4
modifications necessary to bring the plant within emission limits. Such
plans call for a schedule of milestones to modify or replace equipment,
or change operating procedures. These comprise the "critical path to
emission reduction. The permit system thus provides the legal authority
and administrative and engineering evaluation procedures for assuring
the desired end result.
The negotiated compliance plan procedure is likely to be employed in
the early stages of agency development. It may be used either inde-
pendent of, or in conjunction with, a permit system. Where permit
systems are employed, the negotiated compliance plan procedure may be
phased out after major existing sources have been brought under con-
trol. Thereafter, the permit system and routine enforcement serve all
future compliance and emission prevention functions.
B. Emission Inventories
Permit systems are employed to provide the most authoritative data
available for the preparation of emission inventories. These data
include, for example:
• Recorded fuel usage by specification and quantity;
• Estimated emission rates of particulates, gases and vapors;
• Actual emission rates from stack tests;
• Production rates, throughput or process weights;
• Location of equipment (address, grid, etc.); and
• Hours of day and days of week equipment is in operation.
The emissions-inventory defines the magnitude of the problem both by
category of pollutant and by the types of stationary sources that must
be controlled to meet agency standards.
-------
1.5
IV. COMPARISON OF SOURCE REGISTRATION AND PESMIT SYSTEMS
The permit system, when fully implemented, should serve as both a source
registration and a compliance approval system. The permit system, how-
ever, should be distinguished from source registration procedures. The
latter may be conducted as an independent operation, or may be expanded
to serve as an alternative to a fully developed permit system.
A. Source Registration
Source registration is the process of identifying, listing and classifying
all commercial and industrial establishments that carry on operations
that may emit air contaminants. This is usually accomplished by a
questionnaire mailed to the owners of establishments that are of interest
to the Control agency. It is conducted for the purpose of assessing
the air pollution problems of an area and makes available information
about individual facilities such as the nature of business, ownership,
number of employees, fuel use, refuse disposal practices, types of equip-
ment capable of emitting air contaminants, and types and quantities of
materials processed.
Source registration may be conducated as a one-time activity, that is,
registration questionnaires may be sent out once, and follow-up letters
sent to realize a satisfactory level of return. Thereafter, registration
data may be updated or expanded either through inspection of facilities
by enforcement officers, or through the eventual institution of a permit
system, which then in effect continues the registration and approval
functions.
The registration procedure results in a data base describing every
significant source of air pollution in an area administered by an
agency. Subsequent inspections and stack tests of the equipment verify
that the source meets prescribed performance standards. If the equip-
ment is in compliance, only periodic inspection need be conducted to
-------
1.6
determine that the equipment is properly maintained and continues to
meet the agency's standards. If the equipment does not meet the stan-
dards, a schedule for bringing the equipment into compliance is
mandatory. The agency then evaluates the schedule and monitors the
progress made in meeting it. An agency employing a source registration
system will not need an engineering staff as large as that which would
be required by a permit system since the source registration staff, in
effect, serves mainly as a consultant to industry.
B. The Permit System
The permit system, on the other hand, concentrates on specific problems
arising from a particular air pollution control requirement. While
the responsibility for compliance remains with the applicant, air
pollution control expertise from within the agency can assist the
applicant in design decisions. For example, plan evaluation will
reduce the possibility of the installation of equipment incapable of
meeting agency standards and will identify design and conceptual faults
if they exist.
Air pollution control agencies may adopt one of two basic types of
permit systems: (1) permit to construct and a certificate to operate
or (2) certificate to operate only.
Where only a certificate to operate is issued, the permit to construct
is replaced by the submittal of an "intent to construct." This document
puts the agency on notice that new equipment is to be installed in its
jurisdiction and provides the agency with an opportunity to apply for
injunctive relief in cases where outlawed equipment may be installed.
In this system, the owner/operator must agree to comply with agency
standards and source tests should be performed, as needed, to ensure
compliance. In all cases, a final inspection by an engineer from the
air pollution control agency is mandatory.
-------
1.7
C. Selection of Source Approval Systems
The primary criteria as to the type of source approval system that is
to be employed depends on the need for plan review and source evaluation,
and the degree to which these are to be conducted. Air quality require-
ments are the determining factors. Communities which are currently
experiencing or have potential to experience unacceptable air quality,
and which have a large and variable source population and many types
of air pollution problems, will require some type of plan review system
in order for control programs to be effective. The requirement for
3
plan review is stated in the Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158, 8/14/71.
While the size of an agency that uses the permit system is a factor in
selecting the type of system to be used, it is not the overriding con-
sideration. The Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (California)
is responsible for a large land area that contains many diverse in-
dustrial establishments. This agency does not issue permits but uses
the source registration method for industrial compliance with its
standards.
The selection of the system most advantageous to an agency will be
based on the following:
• Anticipated workload of permits resulting from enforcement
of statutes and regulations;
• Scheduled deadlines for compliance;
• Trained manpower available;
• Agency budget; and
• Agency priorities for enforcement, source testing, and permit
processing.
-------
1.8
The anticipated workload of permit applications can be closely estimated
from source registration and emissions inventory data. This will a so
provide the number of applications for specific processes that can be
expected in a given time frame. Figure 1.1 is a schematic representa-
tion of an analysis of resources required to operate a permit system.
The Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District has devised a
method of determining engineering manpower requirements based on a
correlation of the number of "work units" required to process a
corresponding number of "permit units" associated with the issuance
of authorities to construct (A/C) and permits to operate (P/0). Through
years of experience the work unit was found to be equivalent to 1300
work units/man-year of engineering time. Appendix 1 contains the work
units for specific types of equipment for issuing a permit to construct
or a certificate to operate.
For agencies with little experience in estimating the resources required
for a total control program, a workshop publication "Resources for Air
4
Quality Regions" offers an approach using predictors and manpower
factors as a complete program planning device.
Manpower requirements vary with the systems used and depth of the review
and analysis required. During peak workload conditions, New York City
has found it advantageous to use consultant engineering firms to process
permit applications under strict supervision of the air pollution con-
trol agency.
V. PERMIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
An emission inventory is a starting point in examining the extent and
severity of air pollution problems in a defined area. A detailed in-
ventory should describe the major sources of pollution by type and location
-------
REGISTRATION SYSTEM
Agency
• Serves as Consultant to Applicant
Applicant
• Submits Source Test Data
• Stipulates Meeting all Agency Standards
• Provides Statement of Predicted Losses
• Notifies Agency of Intent to Construct
EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
SOURCE
| REGISTRATION
WORK
LOAD
fWORK
I UNITS,
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT & CERTIFICATE
TO OPERATE
Agency
• Performs Engineering Evaluation
and Inspection
• Uses Consultants for Work
Overload
» Accepts P.E. Evaluation
CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE
Applicant
• Notifies Agency of Intent to Construct
• Stipulates Meeting Agency Standards
• Submits Source Test Data
Agency
• Conducts Engineering Inspection
Figure 1.1.
Schematic Reproduction of Analysis for Engineering Manpower
for a Permit System
-------
1.10
(grid area), annual and seasonal emission rates by pollutant, estimates
of total fuel usage including automotive fuels, and the relative weights
of pollutants emitted in geographic sub-areas of a community. Compre-
hensive air monitoring and meteorological data gathering are also necessary
in assessing special geographic and weather conditions which may affect
the air pollution problem of a region.
The interrelationship of air quality data, meteorological data, and emissions
inventory data [defined in such mathematical models as the Air Quality
Implementation Planning Program (IPP), Air Quality Display Model (AQDM)
0
and Reactive Environmental Simulation Model (REM) ] provide the basis for
defining control priorities and strategies and the plans for implementing
them.
A principal method of fulfilling the objectives of the implementation plan
is to employ a permit system. The factors to be considered in determining
the need for such a system are:
• Extent and severity of air pollution problems;
• Number and severity of specific source problems;
• Air pollution control standards to be attained;
• The extent and character of the source population;
• Geographic size of the air pollution control jurisdiction;
• Population, population density and population growth;
• Meteorological and topographical conditions affecting pollution
accumulat ion;
• Organizational capabilities, manpower availability and other
resources;
• Multi-agency cooperation; and
• Involvement of adjacent jurisdictions.
-------
1.11
Since state agencies are responsible for preparation, adoption, and sub-
mittal of implementation plans under the Clean Air Act (including the plan
review responsibility), several alternative organizational structures,
taking into account the above factors, are available for the operation of
permit systems. Figure 1.2 illustrates the following alternative systems:
Alternative la - Delegate the complete responsibility for the permit
system to the local agency which will report specific
information to the State Agency.
Alternative Ib - Delegate the responsibility to local agencies for issuing
permits for "minor" sources. These must be clearly defined
according to capacity, heat input, process weight, etc.
Alternative 2 - The State retains direct responsibility for the permit
system while regional offices issue permits to construct
and certificates to operate, conduct final engineering
inspections, and maintain records.
Alternative 3 - The State agency's main office processes the application,
issues the permit to construct, and requests the field
offices to perform the final engineering inspection. The
certificate to operate is then issued by the main office.
In some states, local agencies that have been operating for many years
have complete functioning permit systems. In these cases, the imposition
of a state system would be redundant. As long as the local requirements
for the issuance of a certificate to operate are equal to or exceed the state
standards, only a reporting function from the local agency to the state is
necessary.
The structure of the State of New Jersey Environmental Protection Agency,
which is representative of the structure of state organizations for pol-
lution control, is shown in Figure 1.3. Figure 1.4 depicts the typical
-------
State .
Air Pollution Control
Agency
Responsi-
bility for
"Minor"
Sources Only
ALT 1
Delega
Issue/Deny Certificate to Operate
%•
Permit
System
sibilitjy
Agency
Full Respon-
sibility for
.all Permits
Local
Agency
1
Set Standards
SState's
Permit System
Issue/Deny Permit
1
Report Data
Permits Issued
Permits Denied
Compliance
Schedules
Etc.
ALT 2
Delegate Responsibility for Permit System to
Regional Offices
Respon-
to Local
Permit
Processing
State H.Q.
State
Regional
Office
State
Regional
Office
State
Regional
Office
Permit
Processing
Engineering
Inspection By
Field Office
Figure 1.2. Alternatives for State Permit Systems
-------
— J^MMMMB rnMM «"rinnirn
1 DIVISION OF
| | ^ EXECUTIVE STAFF | |
BUREAU OF
BUDGET, ACCOUNT
&PROCUREMEK
ptini ir OFFICE OF
ZS5ZSSZSSZ. ZXSS. "-'r,"10" «"=" SESSN
| 1 . 1,
1 II 1 II
FISCAL PBINTSHOP PBOCUBEMENT I'AYBOLL PERSONNEL '""'.^.''J,0"' LAND "^'n'"
SECTION SERVICES SECTION SECTION SECTION ACQUISITION JJ,",
co__f
X.HwT^KMB^vtC**,,^ ENVIRONMENTAL A«iRT™-™FrTnR WATER "^' ' "'"•' " M^ t"'u"t- 'Ufcer.« «.«^«.
I " 1 WATER SUPPLY WATER DUALITY
|
BUREAU OF
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
H PLANNING &
EVALUATION
RESEARCH
- AND
DEVELOPMENT
H LOCAL PROGRAM
DIVISION
FIELD
OPERATIONS
H TECHNICAL
SERVICES
_[ ENFORCEMgNT
4 PERMITS&
CERTIFICATION
111 r — i i • 1 i • 1
BUREAU OF BUREAU OF 1 OFFICE OF BUREAU OF BUREAU OF BUREAU OF BUREAU OF BUREAU OF
RADIATION SOLIDWASTE PESTICIDE WATER WATER FACILITY rrnmrv PLANNINOAND WATER POLLUTION BUREAUOF
CO
Figure 1.3. State of New Jersey - department of environmental protection
(source: reference 9)
-------
1.14
STATE AGENCY
LOCAL AGENCY
Possesses legal authority to
implement a plan for attainment
of air quality objectives.
Prepares statewide standards
and regulations.
Prepares emergency episode action
procedures.
Assigns responsibilities to other
governmental agencies (e.g., fire,
police, and planning departments)
to carry out portions of the con-
trol plan.
Enforces statewide standards and
regulations.
Institutes legal action where local
action is deficient or unauthorized;
Provides legal assistance to local
agencies where necessary to support
local enforcement action.
Develops a statewide program for
source compliance.
Defines compliance schedule policy
and monitors for adequate
implementation.
Develops and implements a statewide
permit system of operation.
Develops and maintains a statewide
emission inventory.
Coordinates statewide complaint
handling activities.
Possesses legal authority necessary
to implement any portion of the
state control plan.
Adopts standards and regulations
consistent with, or more stringent
than, those of the state.
Enforces state approved emergency
procedures within local
jurisdiction.
Develops cooperative agreements with
other local government agencies to
carry out control responsibilities.
Enforces appropriate state or local
regulations.
Initiates legal action to support
enforcement and abatement needs.
Develops compliance schedules with
local sources in accordance with
state policy and procedures.
Monitors local sources for progress
in achieving compliance.
Operates or assists the state in the
operation of the permit system.
Develops & maintains emission inven-
tory and provides local source
emission data.
Provides local complaint handling
service.
Figure 1.4.
Typical division of responsibilities between state and
local air pollution control agencies (sheet 1 of 2)
-------
1.15
STATE AGENCY
LOCAL AGENCY
Operates a statewide air
surveillance system.
Provides statewide laboratory
services.
Assures consistency of all
analytical and calibration
procedures in state and local
laboratories.
Conducts source testing on a state-
wide basis.
Prepares statewide diffusion
climatologies and meteorological
summaries.
Provides meteorological
consultation.
Develops and maintains statewide
data handling system which
facilitates the retrieval of
pertinent data for all program
operations.
Operates a local air surveillance
system in accordance with the state
plan.
Provides local laboratory services
to the extent authorized by state
agency.
Conducts source tests or provides
assistance to state source test
efforts.
Collects and analyzes meteorological
data in accordance with state and
local needs.
Operates local data handling system
compatible with state system.
Figure 1.4.
Typical division of responsibilities between state and
local air pollution control agencies (sheet 2 of 2)
(source: reference 10)
-------
1.16
division of responsibilities among state and local agencies. A productive
relationship, illustrating the cooperation between the State of New Jersey
Bureau of Air Pollution Control and local building departments, has been
achieved. The State has requested that building permits, certificates of
occupancy and other approvals be issued only after proof of possession of
a valid permit to construct or certificate to operate, granted by the
Bureau, has been established.
The structure of a typical local agency is depicted by the organization
chart shown in Figure 1.5. Descriptions of the responsibilities of the
major subdivisions are:
• Technical Services Division
This unit monitors the atmosphere, gathers data, forecasts pollution
conditions, provides laboratory services, and manages and evaluates
the agency data.
• Field Services Division
This unit is charged partially or wholly with all duties connected
with surveillance, plant inspection, enforcement, citizen complaints,
and emergencies.
• Engineering Division
Engineering personnel are required to handle registration of the
sources of air pollution, source testing, and evaluation of
equipment design, operation, and emissions. If the sources of air
pollution in the region are large in number and a permit or licen-
sing system is employed, then a distinct engineering unit must be
utilized to review plans and specifications in order to determine
the degree of compliance with the standards. Where the industrial
complex of a community is not extensive, engineering and inspection
functions can be integrated.
-------
1.17
MAYOR, MANAGER,
COMMISSION, BOARD OR
MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT
HEARING OR APPEALS
BOARD
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL OFFICER
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
ADMINISTRATION
/ BUSINESS \
I MANAGEMENT/
PUBLIC INFORMATION
AND EDUCATION
TECHNICAL
SERVICES DIVISION
Air quality measurement
Laboratory analyses
Data processing
Meteorology
Effects studies
FIELD SERVICES
DIVISION
Field Patrol
Source inspection
Complaints
Court testimony and
case preparation
Plume evaluation
training
Emergency Operations
ENGINEERING
DIVISION
Construction permits
Source testing
Industrial surveys
Regulation development
Emission inventory
Certificate to operate
Figure 1.5. Typical organization chart for a local governmental
air pollution agency (source: reference 11 ~ modified)
-------
1.18
VI. MANPOWER NEEDED TO OPERATE A PEBMIT SYSTEM
The operation of a permit system depends upon the interrelated functions of
administration, evaluation of permit to construct, and evaluation of cer-
tificates to operate. Manning these functions will utilize the skills
represented by the following:
Administration
• Technical supervision to guide and schedule the efforts of the
engineering staff;
• Business management to prepare budgets, supervise clerical and
secretarial staff and general office management duties; and
• Systems analysts and programmers to provide support for the
installation and maintenance of systems and procedures, both maim
and automated, for efficient management of the comparatively
large volume of information generated by the permit system.
Evaluation for Permit to Construct
• Experienced engineers to provide technical expertise and super-
vision for organizational units which process permit applicatic
• Graduate chemical, mechanical or civil (sanitary) engineers to
evaluate permit applications; and
• Junior engineers or technicians with two or more years of
college training to evaluate permit applications for equipment
not requiring complicated analysis.
Evaluation for Certificates to Operate
• Graduate engineers, chemists and experienced technicians to
perform source tests and chemical analysis of samples;
• Technicians to operate and maintain testing equipment; and
• Field enforcement personnel for surveillance and monitoring of
industrial operations.
-------
1.19
The workload of the agency is the only criterion by which the number of individ-
uals in each skill category necessary to support the operation of a permit system
may be measured. The Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District,
for example, has seven permit application processing units, two source
testing units, an engineering projects unit, and a permit application
receiving unit. The latter assists applicants in the proper preparation
of permit application forms. Each unit has a senior air pollution control
engineer (who is either a registered mechanical or chemical engineer)> an
13
intermediate air pollution engineer and four to six graduate engineers.
14
The job and task analysis of the New York City Department of Air Resources,,
shown in Appendix 2, is an example of a comprehensive study of a permit
processing activity. The summary of engineering positions from this study
shows a skills index similar to that of Los Angeles County. Supervisory
classifications call for registered professional engineers, with the lower
grades requiring a B.S. degree in engineering. The distribution of manpower
resources that will be required by an effective air pollution control agency
by 1974 is shown in Figure 1.6.
VII.PERMIT FEES
Funds to support an organization to operate a permit system should emanate,
partially, or in full, from revenue received from permit fees. It must be
recognized that the services provided by the permit system are designed
to aid the applicant by providing expertise in the selection and operation
of air pollution control equipment, as well as to enforce air pollution
control regulations.
-------
1.20
<30
o
o
z
*> co
TECHNICAL
SERVICES
FIELD
AND
COMPLAINTS
-^£$31
FIELD
ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES
6.3%
ENGINEERING
SERVICES
.<*•
o
r>
Cs
MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
'<& \
FIGURE 1.6. Generalized distribution of functional activities for
regulatory agencies anticipated for 1974 (source: reference 15)
-------
1.21
Fees for these services may be based on a variety of principles, ranging from
a one-time fee for a certificate to operate to annual fees after inspection.
The basis for assessing fees also will vary. The possibilities are: a flat
fee for all permits, a filing fee, fees based on capacity or size of equip-
ment, annual fees, and fees based on equipment costs. The City of Chicago
has established an effective fee schedule in its "Environmental Code Ordi-
nance," Figure 1.7. This system provides a graduated scale of fees based
upon size and capacity of combustion equipment and industrial processes
which can be readily administered by technical personnel.
An important factor in designing and implementing a fee system is the cost
of its administration. Caution must be exercised so that the cost of
operating the system does not exceed its benefits.
-------
1.22
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - CITY OF CHICAGO
320 NORTH CLARK STREET - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6O61O
H. W. POSTON - COMMISSIONER
EDWARD PETKUS - ASST. DIRECTOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES
PERMIT FEE INFORMATION
FUEL- BURNING EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
Each unit of Fuel-burning equipment used for space heating, steam or hot water generation shall be assessed a per-
mit fee based upon the following schedule of net output expressed in thousands of British Thermal Units. It mul-
tiple boilers or furnaces of the same make, model and rating are installed or if several gas or oil unit heaters are
Each
mit
tipl
to be installed, the permit fee will be based on ihe total net output.
1000 BRITISH THERMAL FN iwr FFF* INSTALLATION ORDINAL TOTAL FEE
UNITS PER HOUR FILING FEE PERMIT FEE INSPECTION FEE lUlALI-tt
Less than 288 $ 5 $ 10 $ 10 $ 25
288 and less than 960 5 15 20 40
960 and less than 2,880 5 20 30 55
2,880 and over 5 30 40 75
REFUSE-BURNING EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
Each unit of refuse-burning equipment shall be assessed a permit fee based upon the following schedule of the
grate area in square feet.
ADCA in cniiAoc CCCT en ikif» ccc* INSTALLATION ORIGINAL TOT&I FFF
AREA, IN SQUARE FEET FILING Pfct PERMIT FEE INSPECTION FEE lUiALret
Less than 5 $5 $5 $10 $20
5 and less than 10 5 10 20 35
10 and less than 15 5 15 30 50
15 and less than 20 5 20 40 65
20 and over 5 25 50 80
PROCESS EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
Each unit operation and unit process shall be assessed a permit fee based upon the following schedule:
FILING FEE*
1 to 10 unit processes and unit operations ............... [[[ . ......................... $ 5
11 to 100 unit processes and unit operations [[[ 10
101 and over unit processes and unit operations [[[ 15
INSTALLATION PERMIT FEE
Per one unit operation or one unit process creating atmospheric pollution on any device controlling
atmospheric pollution ..................... .. [[[ $ 10
ORIGINAL INSPECTION FEE
Per one unit operation or one unit process creating atmospheric pollution on any device controlling
-------
1.23
REFERENCES
1. Leonard, Thomas M., Jr. Testimony at the 1969 New Jersey Clean Air Council
Public Hearing—Part I, New Brunswick, N.J. February 5, 1969.
2. Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971.
3. Ibid.
4. Walsh, G.W. and D..V. von Lehmden. Resources for Air Quality Controls
Regions. Workshop on Regional Implementation Plans. USDHEW, PHS, NAPCA.
November 1969.
5. Ozolins, G. and K. Smith. A Rapid Survey Technique for Estimating
Community Air Pollution Emissions. USDHEW, PHS, Division of Air Pollution.
October 1966.
6. Air Quality Implementation Planning Program, Vols. I and II. TRW Systems
Group. November 1970. Contract No. PH 22-68-60.
7. Air Quality Display Model, ibid.
8. Wayne, L.G., R. Danchick, M. Weisburd, A. Kokin, and A. Stein. Modeling
Photochemical Smog on a Computer for Decision Making. Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 2, No. 6. June 1971, p. 334-340.
9. New Jersey Environmental Times. January 1971, p. 5.
10. Weisburd, M., A. Stein, R. Bryan, L. Wayne, and A. Kokin. Air Pollution
Control Field Operations Manual (Revised Edition, February 1972). Task
Order 1 for Control Agency Procedures Branch, Office of Air Programs, EPA,
p. 1.33 and 1.34. Contract No. CPA 70-122.
11. Schueneman, J.J. Air Pollution Control Administration. In: Air Pollution,
Vol. Ill, Stern, A.C. (ed.). Academic Press, 1968, p. 719-793.
12. Description and Skill and Knowledge Analysis of Tasks Performed by Personnel
in State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies, Phase I. Applied
Science Associates, Inc., Valencia, Pennsylvania. January 1972, p. 1.27.
Contract No. 68-02-0306.
13. Lunche, R.G., E.E. Lemke and J. A. Verssen. Administration of a Permit
System. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 19, No. 1.
January 1969.
-------
1.24
14. New York City Department of Air Resources, Training Study Vol. II. Job
and Task Analysis Worksheets. Prepared by David Sage, Inc., New York,
N.Y. July 1969.
15. Walsh, op. cit.
-------
CHAPTER 2
PERMIT PROCESSING STEPS
PROCESSING ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM
Effective operation of the permit system requires that each element of
the system be clearly defined to both applicants and the individuals
responsible for its operation. Potential applicants should be made aware
of the information they will need and the data they must provide. Agency
personnel must be fully informed of their duties and should perform them
in an impartial and consistent manner. The elements of the system are
shown in their logical sequence of execution in Figure 2.1 and are further
described in the following sections of this chapter.
A. Notification to Owner or Operator
The initial task shown in Figure 2.1 is to notify owners and operators
of equipment which has the potential to cause air pollution of their
responsibilities for submitting permit applications. The effectiveness
of the permit system will depend on the quality and completeness of
the data supplied by owners and operators. This in turn, depends upon
applicants having comprehensive and accurate information on permit
system requirements and procedures. Therefore, it is vital that the
notification process be as thorough as possible.
1. Who Must be Notified?
In general, any person or other corporate entity likely to be
'involved in building, altering, replacing, or using any unit of
equipment which may cause air contaminants to be emitted into the
atmosphere, or which is intended to control air contaminants must
be notified in order to assure that permission to construct
or operate such equipment is properly considered prior to planned
-------
2.2
OPTIONAL
Figure 2.1. Permit system processing elements
-------
2.3
construction and operation. The agency may specify particular
types of equipment that are exempt from the permit requirements
and whether or not permits are transferable.
Guidelines describing the above procedure may be found in excerpts
of Los Angeles County Permit System Rules and Regulations, Appen-
dix 3.
2. Notification Techniques
No single method can be used by an agency to notify all prospective
permit applicants. Rather, a combination of techniques must be
utilized to apprise the community.
Initially, the public should be informed of the statutes and regu-
lations via the mass media. Repeated announcements will be
necessary, and complete cooperation from newspapers, radio, and
television is essential. These news items should define, as
clearly as possible, those individuals who are affected and what
their immediate responsibilities are. For example, the mass media
could inform the public that these persons should obtain necessary
information and forms from the local environmental agency for sub-
mission by a particular date. The media performs a similar service
every April by indicating when Federal Income Tax returns must be
filed.
The second phase of the process involves contact of potential
applicants by direct mail. If the agency had previously registered
sources of pollution or prepared .an emissions inventory, it may
-------
2.4
have its own mailing lists available. Otherwise, the agency
may obtain mailing lists from other local governmental divisions
such as the building department, and from the numerous professional
and manufacturing associations.
The third phase of the process involves follow-up and contact
with owners and operators by field enforcement personnel in the
course of conducting field inspections. Field enforcement
personnel serve a notification function and can answer questions
and supply information needed by owners and operators. After
the permit system is in effect, and a suitable grace period has
passed, regulations requiring submission of applications are
enforced.
3. Equipment Request
If the agency does not know what equipment an owner or operator
is using, it will be necessary to contact him requesting these
data so that the proper forms may be provided. This information
may be supplied voluntarily, or by checking building department
or other governmental records. In communities where the variety
of equipment used is quite limited, this step is not required.
B. Document Distribution
Informational documents supplied to applicants should include a
letter, a copy of the statute or ordinance necessitating their
response, application forms, and instruction sheets for the forms.
It is important that this package be complete and enable the appli-
cant to fulfill his responsibilities without error and without
-------
2.5
contacting the agency for guidance. If the latter need does arise,
or if in the future the agency must contact the applicant in order to
correct his errors or to gain additional information, an added and
possibly preventable expense will be incurred.
1. Letter
The letter to the permit applicant should include the following:
• Quotation or paraphrase of the law requiring his response;
• A brief explanation of the law;
• A list of the enclosures so that material that has been
inadvertently omitted can be determined;
• The time frame available for filling out and returning
the forms;
• An indication of how additional information may be obtained,
if needed; and
• The response of the agency if the applicant fails to comply.
An example of such a letter appears in Figure 2.2.
2. Statutes and Regulations
The inclusion of the statute and appropriate regulations may be
considered as optional on the part of the agency. The main purpose
in providing this information to the applicant is to give him an
immediate opportunity to verify for himself whether or not he must
comply. Of course, even if the law is not supplied, the owner or
operator can obtain a copy from the governmental agency printing
such documents, or the air pollution control agency itself. However,
this may delay his response.
3. Applications and Instructions
The owner or operator should receive applications and instruction
sheets to enable him to satisfy his responsibilities according to
-------
2.6
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY • FLORIDA
864 N. w. Z3RD STREET DADE COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33127
TELEPHONE 377-5891
The Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control Ordi-
nance, Section 24-30, requires that any person causing
a device or process to be installed that may be a
source of air pollution must submit to this office
appropriate plans and applications for approval, prior
to installing the device or process.
Section 24-47 further requires that the owner of any
existing facility must submit appropriate plans and
applications for a Permit to Operate.
Enclosed you will find application forms. These forms
must be filled out and returned to this office within
fifteen (15) days. Failure to return the forms shall
result in appropriate legal action.
If you desire any additional information, please call
the undersigned at 377-5891.
Very truly yours.
Permit Section
Pollution Control
Figure 2.2. Agency letter mailed with application forms
-------
2.7
the statute. This includes general permit application information
as shown in Figure 2.3.
He also receives appropriate forms for his equipment. For example,
the applicant may have a boiler, incinerator, or exhaust system.
Specific forms should be available for all equipment types that
are frequently used in the domain of any agency. Instruction sheets
for the equipment item must also be mailed. Figure 2.4 illustrates
an agency application for an exhaust system plan; Figure 2.5 contains
the corresponding instructions.
If a form is not available for a particular equipment item, the
applicant will receive either a form for a "Permit to Construct," or
a form for a "Certificate to Operate." Figure 2.6 contains the
former, with Figure 2.7 showing the related instruction sheets.
Figures 2.8 and 2.9 illustrate the application and instruction
sheets for the certificate to operate.
C. Voluntary and Enforced Response
If, at the end of the time frame indicated in the initial letter to the
owner or operator, the application has not been returned, a follow-up
letter should be sent. The recipient of this correspondence should be
informed that he is in violation of the law (citing the exact statute)
and that this is his final notice.
If his application is not filed by a date mentioned in the final notice,
an agency enforcement officer should serve a notice of violation. Dis-
regard of the notice must lead to the agency taking legal action against
the owner. If the court finds the individual in violation of the permit
statute, penalties can be imposed.
[The text continues on page 2.20]
-------
2.8
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
434 SOUTH SAN PEDRO STREET. LOS ANGELES. CALIF. 90013. MADISON 9-4711
PERMIT APPLICATION INFORMATION
I. IN WHAT AREAS MUST PERMITS BE OBTAINED?
Permits must be obtained to CONSTRUCT, ERECT, INSTALL, ALTER, REPLACE and to OPERATE cer-
tain classes of equipment in all cities and unincorporated areas wlthjn the boundaries of
Los Angeles County.
2. WHAT CLASSES OF EQUIPMENT REQUIRE PERMITS?
Permits are required for two general classes of equipment as follows:
a. BASIC equipment. This class includes any article, machine, equipment or contrivance,
the use of which may CAUSE the issuance of air contaminants.
b. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL equipment. This class includes any article, machine, equipment
or contrivance, the use of which may ELIMINATE, REDUCE or CONTROL the issuance of air
contaminants.
In general, a separate application must be filed for each unit of basic equipment and for
each unit or system of air pollution control equipment. When a proposed Installation In-
volves more than one piece of equipment i n any given process, it would be advisable for you
to call the Permit Application Receiving Unit. MAdison 9-4711, Ext. 66165— for clari-
fication. Note: Some classes of equi pment are specifically exempted by Rule II of
the Rules and Regulations.
3. WHAT ARE AIR CONTAMINANTS?
Air contaminants may include smoke, charred paper, fly-ash, dust, soot, grime, carbon,
noxious acids, fumes, gases, odors, particulate matter and other similar materials or any
combinations of such materials. Air contaminants may be visible or Invisible and may be
in the form of small solid particles, or of liquid droplets, or of mists, vapors or gases
or any mixtures of such forms.
4. HOW CAN AN AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT BE OBTAINED?
A written application must be filed andawritten authorization must be obtained. AUTHORITY
TO CONSTRUCT I OR TO INSTALL) and a PERMIT TO OPERATE must be secured for both bas ic equ ip-
ment and air pollution control equipment erected, installed, built, altered, replaced or
used.
5. ARE PERMITS TRANSFERABLE?
Permits are not transferable. This rule applies both to locations and to persons.
6. WHO MUST APPLY FOR, A PERMIT?
The corporation, company, individual owner or government agency that is to operate the
equipment must apply.
7. WHEN MUST A PERMIT BE SECURED?
A permit.must be secured for both bas-ic equipment and air pollution control eauioment
BEFORE any CONSTRUCTION. ERECTION, INSTALLATION, ALTERATION, REPLACEMENT or OPERATION of
equipment is begun in each of the following situations: '
a. When new equipment is to be constructed .or installed.
b. Whenever equipment is to be replaced or altered in such a manner as to have any
effect whatsoever (either an increase or a decrease) on the production or control of
ai r contaminants.
c. Whenever equipment is to be moved to a new address.
d. Whenever equipment is purchased or when a new lessee desires to operate such equip-
ment .
e. Where equipment had a former blanket permit (Rule 13),
16-50086 R8-65-2
Figure 2.3. Permit application information (sheet 1 of 2)
(source: reference 1)
-------
2.9
8. WHAT INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH AN APPLICATION?
a. An application for an authority to construct and permit to o.perate must be accom-
panied by complete data; plans, descriptions, specifications and drawings to show
how the proposed equipment is designed -and in what manner it will be operated and
.controlled. Complete information is essential to allow District engineers to
evaluate the design from an air pollution point of view.
b. The Rules and Regulations of the Air Pollution Control District require that the
Air Pollution Control Officer shall deny an authority to construct or permit to
operate if the applicant does not show that the equipment is so designed, con-
trolled or equipped that it may be expected to operate without violating any pro-
visions of the Rules and Regulations.
c. Applications, information and instructions concerning the engineering data that
must be furnished with an application may be obtained by writing or calling the
Permit Application Receiving Unit, MAdison 9-4711, ext.66171. For such infor-
mation please specify the equipment.
d. The engineering evaluation of the design may disclose that a proposed installation
need not require special controls in order to meet air pollution requirements as
well as detect inadequate design features in the planning stage. Many times a
change in design will accomplish either proper cont roI or a I low more s imple con-
troI methods. Such knowledge in the planning stage may result In the saving of
t ime and money.
9. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO OBTAIN AN AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT?
The engineering evaluation ofanapplication is made as rapidly as possible. Approximately
a week, however, is required under optimum conditions. The submission of complete data with
an application expedites the processing. If details are lacking, all work on such an ap-
plication is held up until the necessary information is supplied. It Is advantageous for
an applicant to submit an application as far as possible in advance of the time con-
struction or installation is scheduled.
10. WHAT IS THE FEE FOR A PERMIT?
a. A $40.00 filing fee must accompany each application except in the case of a trans-
fer of ownership where no alteration, addition or change of Iocation has occurred.
For this exception the application filing fee will be $10.00. The filing fee will
be applied t c the final fee for p:
-------
2.10
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Division of Industrial Hygiene
Engineering Section
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF
EXHAUST SYSTEM PLAN
(This Box For Office Use Only)
PLAN NO.
DATE REC'D.
FEE REC'D.
FILING INSTRUCTIONS - ONE COMPLETED COPY OF THIS FORM MUST BE FILED FOR EACH FAN SYSTEM IN THE EXHAUST
PLANS BEING SUBMITTED. Forward exhaust system plans IN TRIPLICATE, together with one completed copy of this form tor each
fan system, to the Engineering Section of the Division of Industrial Hygiene at one of the following Department of Labor Offices. Pla,
for exhaust systems to be installed in the counties of Cafaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Livingston Monroe, Niagara, Ontano,
Orleans, Wayne, Wyoming and Yates should be sent to: 2447 SHERIDAN DRIVE, TONAWANDA N.Y.14150, Plans tor exhaust systen
to be installed in counties other than those listed above, should be submitted to: 80 CENTRE STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013.
IMPORTANT: Effective June 1, 1963, the Industrial Commissioner is required by section 204-a of the Labor Law to charge a FEE
FOR THE EXAMINATION OF EXHAUST PLANS. Please forward with the plans a check or money order payable to the Industrial
Commissioner, in accordance with the following fee schedule FOR EACH FAN SYSTEM:
CATEGORY A
"Simple single booths and enclosures, such as spray booths; canopy
hoods; dilution, general and natural draft ventilation systems".
Design CFM
less than 5,000
5,000 or more
Fee
$10
20
CATEGORY B
All systems other than category A.
Design CFM Fee
less than 250 $10
250 or more but less than 1,000 20
1,000 or more but less than 5,000 30
5,000 or more but less than 10,000 40
10,000 or more 50
1. FIRM NAME
2. MAILING ADDRESS
3. PLANT LOCATION (Street aid Number, City, Tonri, W/;ag«, County.)
4e. PLANT REPRESENTATIVE TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING EXHAUST SYSTEM PLANS 4b. TITLE
5- NUMBER OF IN-PLANT EMPLOYEES
AT THE ABOVE PLANT LOCATION:
6, NO OF EMPLOYEES AT
OPERATIONS OK MACHINES
7. AUTHORIZED AGENT (il any) SUBMITTING PLANS (Enf., Dotlfner, Consulting Firm, Etc.) LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION MUST ACCOMPANY PLANS
8. BUSINESS ADDRESS OF AGENT ~~~ ~~"~~
9. NO. OF FAN SYSTEMS SHOWN ON PLAN
(Fen Systems Should Be Numbered)
10. SUBMITTED FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH INDUSTRIAL CODE RULE NO.
FAN SYSTEM NO..
GENERAL DATA
AMOUNT OF FEE ENCLOSED-
11. LOCATION OF SYSTEM
c. DEPARTMENT
d. NUMBER OF
FLOORS IN BLDG.
12a. IS PROPOSED INSTALLATION NEW?
DYES quo
I2b. ADDITION TO OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING SYSTEM
DYES a NO
13. DOES THIS PLAN AMEND
PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED PLAN?
IF YES. GIVE PREVIOUS PLAN NO. AND AMOUNT OF FEE PAID
14. IS THIS INSTALLATION TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS OR SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED BY THIS DEPARTMENT?
DYES Q NO
IF YES, GIVE DATE OF ISSUANCE
IS. IS DISCHARGE OF SYSTEM TO BE RECIRCULATED TO THE WORKROOM? I I YES I I NO ~
("Diachafgod Ate Ml/eh Cantatas Dangeraua Air Contaminants Shall Not fie Rec/rcufafed. •• - Rule ffi-fl 5;
16
17
DISCHARGE POINT: | [ ABOVE ROOF [ j OUT OF
FEET TO NEAREST FIRE ESCAPE OR EXIT
MAKE-UP AIR
XHAU
WINDOW
1 | THROUGH SIDE WALL | J OTHER
FEET ABOVE ROOF FEET TO NEAREST WINDOW
5TED, TO BE SUPPLIED BY
17H. MEANS FOR HEATING MAKE-UP AIR
IH-2I2 (6-«9)
(SEE OVER)
Figure 2.4. Application for the approval of an exhaust system plan (sheet 1 of
-------
2.11
DESCRIBE MACHINES AND OPERATIONS FULLY ON PLANS. SEE INSTRUCTION
SHEET, FORM W-2I2.J FOR GO/DANCE IN THE PREPARATION OF EXHAUST SYSTEM PLANS.
AIR CLEANING DATA
18. IS AIR CLEANING EQUIPMENT PROVIDED?
DYES
[UNO
20a. AIR CLEANER MANUFACTURER
19. TYPE OF AIR CLEANING EQUIPMENT (II my) TO BE USED (Cyclone, Cloth Am,tor. Etc.)'
20b. MODEL OR CATALOG NO. 20c. SIZE
21. MAXIMUM PRESSURE DROP THROUGH AIR CLEANER AT
OPERATING CONDITIONS ("V.G.)
FAN DATA {If more than one fan system is shown on plans, each fan should be numbered and described)
FAN TYPE
S.P. fin. water) B.H.P.
24. MFR.-S RATING: RPM
MOTOR H.P.
25. FAN CONDITION
[2j New Q J Reconditioned
26. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: CFM
S.P, (in. water)
27. FAN INLET DIAMETER
Inches
28. FAN OUTLET DIAMETER OR SIZE
inches
DIMENSIONS OF UNITS EXHAUSTED (Identify on plan by letter; use separate sheet if necessary)
29, UNIT LET-
TER ON PLAN
30, DESCRIPTION
(Examples; fitlndinR wheel,
bett, ran*, booth.)
31, SIZE
fHhee/ diameter A
thickneam, bolt width,
tank dimensions)
32. OPERATION AND/OR CONTAMINANT
(Examples: hrass polishing, vapor decreasing,
coutttic dipping at ISO0, chromium plating)
33 BRANCH
ni.XMKTKK
34. SIGNATURE OF PERSON SUBMITTING 3S" °ATF' SUBMITTED
PLANS AND THIS APPLICATION
SPACE BELOW FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
[H APPROVED I I DISAPPROVED
REMARKS.
EXAMINED BY_
TOTAL FEE FOR THIS FAN SYSTEM
CHECKED BY
Figure 2.4. Application for the approval of an exhaust system plan (sheet 2 of 2
-------
2.12
STATE OF NEW YORK - DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
EXHAUST SYSTEMS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING PLANS - Plans must show:
1. An outline of that portion of the building ot buildings in which the exhaust system is to be installed or extended. The out-
line must be of sufficient scope to give a clear indication of the mode of entrance and source of tempered make-up air. All
pillars, columns or structural members which are adjacent to the machines or processes to be connected to such exhaust
system or to any of the ducts or other parts thereof should also be shown.
2. Location of each machine or process and its designation by a suitable outline. The size ot other characteristics of the ma-
chine, equipment or operations which is used as the basis for the designed exhaust air quantity should also be indicated (e.g.
grinding wheel diameter and thickness, temperature and rate of solvent evaporation in oven, temperature and contents of tank
baths in open surface tank operations, etc.).
3. Layout in plan and elevation of exhaust system including all of its parts, drawn to scale with all ducts shown by double lines.
This should indicate the duct sizes, minimum air velocities in the ducts, method and frequency of supports, clean-outs, re-
movable caps, fan and air cleaning equipment and the location of the point of discharge in relation to roof, walls, windows,
doors of the factory and adjacent premises.
4. Details of design and dimensions of all hoods, booths and enclosures and other points of ventilation including details of their
support and construction. Air quantity or velocity at each hood, booth, work opening or point of control should be specified.
Show total design CFM for each fan system.
5. Details of the design, construction and support of any air cleaning equipment which may be used. (For centrifugal and other
essentially constant pressure drop air cleaners: specify the cleaner resistance at the specific system air flow. For cloth
arresters: specify effective cloth area, form in which cloth is used, cloth type, etc. Specify maximum resistance of arresters
at time prior to shaking. Indicate whether shaking is manual, motorized, automatic, etc., and time between shakings.) When
commercially available equipment is used, indicate the manufacturer's catalog number.
6. Complete fan specifications including name, type, design, size. Specify manufacturer's fan rating applicable to designed
system, such as CFM, SP (system resistance), fan RPM, BHP and motor HP.
If plans are for the addition to an existing system, i.e., wherever branches or mains of the proposed system connect into any
main, separator or discharge duct of a previously installed system, plans must show sufficiently detailed information as to the
duct sizes, air quantities and air flow resistance throughout the previously installed system to allow an accurate calculation of
the effect of connecting the proposed system.
Plans submitted herewith must be of professional quality equivalent to those prepared by designers or draftsmen skilled in the
art of preparing mechanical drawings of industrial exhaust systems. Plans of lesser quality or plans accompanied by incomplete
or illegible specifications, may either be returned for resubmission in acceptable form or, in extreme cases, be summarily dis-
approved. General consrruction, air cleaner and fan specifications are preferably included directly on the plans.
Design and construction of exhaust systems shall conform to the pertinent Industrial Code Rules and acceptable standards of
good engineering practice. Engineering plates illustrating such standards are available from the Engineering Section of the
Division of Industrial Hygiene. A list of such plates will be furnished on request.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING APPLICATION FORM (IH-212): One application form must be submitted for each fan system
included in the plans. Thus, if the plans show four fan systems (i.e., four fans) then four application forms must be filed along
with the plans. If the plans amend or revise previously submitted plans for which an exhaust plan fee was paid to the Industrial
Commissioner, indicate this in item 13 of form IH-212 and give the previous plan number.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING PLANS AND APPLICATIONS: Forward exhaust system plans IN TRIPLICATE, together with one
completed copy of form IH-212 ("Application for Approval - Exhaust Plans") for each new or revised fan system in the plans,
to the Division of Industrial Hygiene, New York State Department of Labor at one of the following offices. Plans for exhaust
systems to be installed in the counties of Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genessee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario.
Orleans, Wayne, Wyoming and Yates should be sent to 2447 SHERIDAN DRIVE, TONAWANDA, N.Y. 14150. Plans to he in-
stalled in counties other than those listed above should be submitted to 80 CENTRE STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; Employers or agents must file specifications and plans for exhaust
system. Agents mus
systems required by the Labor Law or the Industrial Code Rules BEFORE the installation or extension of any such "exhaust
it submit a letter from their client authorizing them to file plans on the client's behalf.
(SEE OVER FOR PLANS EXAMINATION FEES)
IH-212.1 (9-68) ENG.
Figure 2.5. Instructions for filing an exhaust system plan (sheet 1 of 2)
-------
2.13
FEES FOR PLANS EXAMINATION
NEW PLANS
See fee schedule on application form IH-212 using the following examples to determine appropriate
category:
Category A
1. All dilution ventilation systems where general ventilation, usually by means of
free air fans in the roof, wall, windows, etc., is provided to dilute the contami-
nants released by an operation to acceptable concentrations.
2. All general ventilation systems for heat or fume ventilation such as in a weld-
ing shop, laundry, foundry, etc.
3. Simple, single spray booths and dipping booths for the application of paint,
lacquers, enamels, and similar finishing materials by dipping, impregnating,
spraying, spreading and flow or roller coating. Booth and dilution ventilation
for subsequent drying operations are included.
4. Simple, single, high volume, low pressure booths, similar to spray booths, used
for such operations as welding, etc.
5- All Natural draft systems.
Note: Where more than one exhaust fan in Category A is used to accomplish
one purpose, such as two fans in a spray booth, several fans in windows
for dilution ventilation of a workroom, several exhausters in the roof of
a foundry room, for fume removal, etc., all will be considered one fan
system and the sum of the CFM's will be used to determine the fee.
Category B
All other systems fall into Category B. Multi-branch pipe systems containing more
than one Category A type hood also fall into Category B. (For example, two or more
spray booths connected by branch pipes to a main pipe and fan consitute a Category
B system)
Note: Where two or more fan systems are connected to a single main pipe or
single air cleaner, they are considered as separate fan systems.
REVISED PLANS
The following criteria have been established regarding resubmission of plans:
1. A fee will not be charged for any resubmissions for disapproved plans if the
design CFM remains in the same fee bracket as in the original submission.
If a resubmission is in a higher fee bracket, the difference in fees will be
charged.
2. If within one year after plan approval the applicant submits revised plans re-
presenting minor change in the installation, no fee will be charged if such plans
are in the same fee bracket. If the revised plans fall into a higher fee bracket,
the difference in fees will be charged. Revisions of approved plans more than
one year old are considered new, and the full fee will be charged.
3. If any time after plan approval the applicant submits revised plans representing
major change in the installation, the plans will be considered new, and the full
fee will be charged.
Note; A major change is defined as one with a 50% or greater increase in CFM
or in number of branch pipes.
EXEMPTIONS: Plans submitted by or on behalf of a governmental jurisdiction ore exempt
from the fee requirement.
Figure 2.5. Instructions for filing an exhaust system plan (sheet 2 of 2)
-------
2.14
Ai,.29
Nov. 70
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL OR ALTER CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT
TO: New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Pollution Control
P. O. Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Date
Use instructions, Air-Dl3
Sec. A
1. Full Business Name.
2. Address of equipment and/or control apparatus:
No. Street
3. Location on premises (Bldg., Dept., area etc.).
4. Nature of Business
Municipality
County
_SIC No.
1. j 1 New process equipment and new air pollution control apparatus
[ | New air pollution control apparatus on existing process equipment:
j | New process equipment with no control apparatus
Q Other:
2. Prior permit numbers covering this installation. Specify.
3. Estimated starting date Estimated completion
Sec. C
1. Description of operation.
2. Identify process equipment.
3. Raw materials (names)
_Total pounds per batch
Total pounds per hour
4. Operating procedure:
QJ Continuous: „ hrs. per day days per [ | week [^\ month
I | Batch: hrs. per batch, Batches per | | day j | week
Physical and chemical nature of air contaminants which must evolve from operation and be emitted into the
open air:
AIR CONTAMINANTS
AMOUNTS OF CONTAMINANTS
With Control Apparatus Without Control Apparatus
Sec. D
(Continue on reverse side)
Figure 2.6. Application for permit to construct (sheet 1 of 2)
-------
2.15
Sec. E
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Describe air pollution control apparatus
Efficiency of control apparatus: %
Height of discharge above ground fr
Distance from discharge to nearest property line ft.
Volume of gas discharged inro open air r-u_ fr ppr min_ at srart conditions
Exit linear velocity at point of discharge ft. per minute at stack conditions
Temperature at point of discharge °F
Will emissions complv with exi sting ]nra] retjii rempnrs?
Initial cost of control apparani <; &
Estimated annual operating cost $
This application is submitted in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 26;2C-9.2, and to the best of
my knowledge and belief is true and correct.
Signature — all copies
Name (Print or type)
Mailing Address
Title
Zip Code
Telephone No.
DO NOT WRITE BELOW
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL OR ALTER CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT
Application for permission to construct, install or alter the equipment and/or control apparatus as
set forth above is APPROVED.
Date-
Approved by:.
PERMIT NO. -
Supervisor, Permits 6 Certificates
Submit original and three (3) copies
M5379
Figure 2.6. Application for permit to construct (sheet 2 of 2)
-------
2.16
Air-D13
Nov. 70
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT lll$ll|f J| OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT, INSTALL OR ALTER CONTROL APPARATUS
OR EQUIPMENT
New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 26:2C—9.2 requires that no person shall construct, install, or alter any
equipment capable of causing the emission of air contaminants into the open air or control apparatus
which prevents or controls the emission of air contaminants until an application including plans and
specifications has been filed with the Department of Environment Protection and an installation or al-
teration permit has been issued by the Department. The statute further requires that an operating
certificate be issued by the Department before the control apparatus or equipment is used.
Form AIR-29 is an application for a "PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL OR ALTER CONTROL AP-
PARATUS OR EQUIPMENT."
The form provides for certain basic information as to plans and specifications. In all instances form AIR-
29 must be supplemented to provide the Department with information necessary to determine if the
equipment or control apparatus will:
(1) Operate without causing violation of any provision of the Air Pollution Control Act or
codes, rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.
and that
(2) The equipment incorporates advances in the art of air pollution control for the kind and amount
of air contaminant emitted by the applicant's equipment.
A SEPARATE FORM AIR-29 IS REQUIRED FOR EACH STACK, CONDUIT, FLUE, DUCT, VENT
OR SIMILAR DEVICE EMITTING AIR CONTAMINANTS INTO THE OPEN AIR. An original plus
three copies of form AIR-29 is to be submitted.
Attachments to form AIR-29 may be sumbitted in duplicate.
Sec. A—Item (1) refers to the name of the corporation, company, association, society, firm, partnership,
individual or political subdivision of the state.
Item (2) the street address at which the equipment or control apparatus is to be used.
Item (3) refers to the specific location on the premises where the equipment or control appara-
tus is to be installed.
Item (4) the general nature of the business conducted and the .standard industrial classification
number which best classifies the operation.
Sec. B—Item (1) must be appropriately checked.
Item (2) must be filled in if applicable, and permit numbers lixted.
Item (3) shows the estimated date on which construction is to he started and the estimated
date the work will be completed.
Sec. C—Item (1) requires a brief description of the operation which emits air contaminants through
the stack, conduit, flue, duct, vent or similar device.
Item (2) Process descriptions and flow diagrams shall be included for each source operation
which emits air contaminants through the stack, conduit, flue, duct, vent or similar device for
which the application is filed. The process description and flow diagram shall show the types
and quantities of raw materials to be used, the processes which will effect physical or chemi-
cal changes and the methods of charging and discharging materials.
For manufacturing processes which emit air contaminants from two or more source operations,
a composite process description and flow diagram may be submitted for all stacks, chimneys
etc. shown and referenced to the appropriate form AIR-29.
Item (3) list all raw materials that are to be charged into the source operation giving their
chemical composition. Give the total rate at which raw materials are to be charged into the
source operation. In the case of a continuous operation, it should be expressed either as pounds
per hour or some other convenient unit of time and for batch operation as pounds per batch.
Item (4) indicate whether the operation is to be continuous or a batch type and specify the
planned schedule at which it is. to be operated.
Sec. D—Requires a listing of each of the air contaminants which evolve from the operation and must
be discharged into the open air through the stack, chimney, etc. The emissions should be ex-
pressed in terms such as pounds per hour, concentration in the exhaust gases or other appro-
priate units. Wherever control apparatus is to be installed, the amount of air contaminants
Figure 2.7. Instructions for filing a permit to construct (sheet 1 of 2)
-------
2.17
emitted without the control apparatus and the amout of air contaminants to be emitted with the
control apparatus shall be shown.
NOTES: Terms such as "none", "nil", "trace", "negligible", etc. cannot be accepted. However, "less
than pounds per hour" or a similar statement will be satisfactory.
Incinerator applications must specifically show compliance with standards for particulates,
smoke, unburned waste and ash, and odors, as stated in Chapter 11—Incinerators.
Sec. E—Item (1) provide a brief description of the control apparatus or air pollution control system.
ATTACHMENTS MUST BE INCLUDED TO PROVIDE DETAILS describing the control appa-
ratus. This description shall include the basic principles applied to remove air contaminants
including but not necessarily limited to:
Data and calculations used in the sizing and selection of the control apparatus.
If the control apparatus is standard commercial equipment specify manufacturer, model, size,
type and capacity of the apparatus.
If control apparatus other than standard commercial equipment is used, provide a sketch of
the control apparatus showing the principle of operation and the basis for calculation of its air
pollution control efficiency.
Describe the means of disposal of any air contaminants which are collected by the control
apparatus.
Show any bypasses of the control apparatus and specify when such bypasses are to be used
and under what conditions.
Describe the procedure to be used for preventing losses of air contaminants to the open air
when cleaning, reactivating or otherwise maintaining and operating the unit.
Temperatures of gases entering or leaving the control apparatus.
Wherever applicable, specify material from which filter materials are made, giving the total fil-
tering area.
Describe filter cleaning procedure and procedure used to assure effective maintenance of filters.
Details on control apparatus employing scrubbers shall include details of the scrubbing prin-
ciple, the volume of water used as related to the volume of air passing through the scrubber.
Specify the percent of recirculated water, chemicals or additives used in the water and deposi-
tion of the scrubbing liquor.
For control apparatus employing heat or burners to consume potential air contaminants, in-
clude the minimum and average temperatures and the average detention time of the contamin-
ants in the combustion chamber. If catalysts are employed, give type and quantity of the ma-
terial and describe the bed.
Where control apparatus other than as outlined above are to be used, provide data on principle
of operation and criteria used in evaluating control efficiency.
Item (2) enter the percent removed by the control apparatus from the amount that would
otherwise be released to the atmosphere.
Item (3) height of stacks, chimney, etc. above ground or such other point from which air con-
taminants are emitted into open air.
Item (4) refers to the distance from the base of the stack to the nearest property line.
Item (5)-(7) should be based upon normal operating conditions.
Item (8) refers to such ordinances as might be in effect with the county, region or municipality.
Item (9) and (10) relate to the initial cost of the control apparatus only and the estimated
cost for operating the equipment.
Persons requiring additional information in connection with the filing of the application for a
Permit to Construct, Install or Alter Control Apparatus or Equipment, should write to New
Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, P.O.
Box 1390, Trenton, New Jersey, 08625. Phone: Area 609-292-6716.
NOTE: No person shall use or cause to be used any new or altered control apparatus or equipment for
which a Permit to Construct, Install or Alter Control Apparatus or Equipment is required or
has been issued until a certificate to operate has been issued by the Department. Application
for said certificate should be made to the Department on form AIR-SO, "Application for
Certificate to Operate Control Apparatus or Equipment."
Figure 2.7. Instructions for filing a permit to construct (sheet 2 of 2)
-------
2.18
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT
TO: New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Pollution Control
P. 0. Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Date
Use Instructions, Air-D-14
Sec. A
See. B
Sec.C
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
Address of equipment and/or control apparatus:
No. Street Municipality County
Location on premises (Bldg., Dept., area, etc.). __ —
Ttate- pqnipment rn hp put in use
Plant Contact:
Name (Print or Type) Telephone No.
Title Telephone Extension
This application is submitted in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 26;2C-9.2, and to the best of my
knowledge and belief is true and correct.
Signature — all copies
Name (Print or Type)
Mailing Address, Zip
Title
DO NOT WRITE BELOW
CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT
TEMPORARY DURATION
fVrrifirarp Nn-
Pat** Appr^vprl
F-xpiration Hare
Apprfivf.fl Ky-
Supervisor, Permits & Certificates
5 YEAR DURATION
Certificate No.
Date Approved
Expiration date
Appmvrd hy! .... .
Supervisor, Permits & Certificates
Submit original and seven (7) copies
M6042
Figure 2.8. Application for certificate to operate
-------
2.19
Air-D14
Nov. 70
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT H f^gO OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE
TO OPERATE CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT
New Jersey statute N.J;S.A. 26:20-9.2, requires that no person shall use or cause to be used any new
or altered equipment capable of causing the emission of air contaminants into the open air or any new
or altered control apparatus which prevents or controls the emissions of air contaminants until applica-
tion has been filed with the Department of Environmental Protection and a certificate to operate has
been issued by the Department.
Form AIR-30 is an application for a "CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE CONTROL APPARATUS OR
EQUIPMENT." The issuance of this certificate is contingent upon the applicant holding an APPROVED
AIR-29, "APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL OR ALTER CONTROL APPA-
RATUS OR EQUIPMENT." If the applicant does not hold an approved AIR-29, Form AIR-30 must be
accompanied by completed Forms AIR-29.
A SEPARATE FORM AIR-30 IS REQUIRED FOR EACH STACK, CONDUIT, FLUE, DUCT, VENT
OR SIMILAR DEVICE EMITTING AIR CONTAMINANTS INTO THE OPEN AIR. AN ORIGINAL
PLUS SEVEN (7) COPD3S* OF FORM AIR-30 IS TO BE SUBMITTED.
Section A—Item (1) refers to the permit number as it appears on form AIR-29, "Application for Permit
to Construct, Install or Alter Control Apparatus or Equipment.
Item (2) refers to the name of the corporation, company, association, society, firm, part-
nership, individual or political subdivision of the state to which a permit was issued.
Item (3) the street address at which the control apparatus or equipment is to be used.
Item (4) refers to the specific location on the premises where the equipment or control
apparatus is installed.
Section B—Item (1) listing of the process equipment as described in Section C, Item (2) of AIR-29.
Item (2) requires a brief description of the air pollution control apparatus as described in
Section E, Item (1) of AIR-29.
Item (3) show the estimated date the equipment and/or control apparatus will be placed
in operation. (NOTE—THE DATE SHOWN SHOULD BE THE BEST ESTIMATE AVAIL-
ABLE TO THE APPLICANT TO AVOID REFILING. IN MOST CASES TEMPORARY
CERTIFICATES VALID FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 90 DAYS WILL BE ISSUED.
THIS 90 DAY PERIOD IS TO ALLOW FOR INSPECTION, EVALUATION AND/OR
TESTING OF THE CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT FOR WHICH THE CERTI-
FICATE IS ISSUED. IF THE FACILITIES ARE NOT IN OPERATION DURING THIS
PERIOD, IT WILL REQUIRE REFILING BY THE APPLICANT FOR AN EXTENSION
OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE.
IF CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS ARE FORWARDED TO THE BUREAU PRIOR TO
THE DATE THE EQUIPMENT IS TO BE PLACED IN USE, THEY WILL BE HELD
IN ABEYANCE AND ISSUED ON THE DATE INDICATED ON THE APPLICATION
FORM.
Section C Indicate the name of the person who would be contacted by the New Jersey State Department
of Environmental Protection for further details or to arrange for inspection of facilities.
NOTE: The -possession of a "Certificate to Operate Control Apparatus or Equipment" shall not ex-
empt any person from prosecution if the actual operation of the control apparatus or equip-
ment is not in compliance with all state and local requirements.
*Four copies will be held for issuance of a five-year certificate upon proof of satisfactory operation.
M6041
Figure 2.9. Instructions for filing a certificate to operate
-------
2.20
D. Receiving and Checking the Application
When the engineering review of an application takes place, it is imper-
ative that the engineer has all the data that he needs before him. If
he must interrupt his evaluation because of insufficient information,
he has wasted his time. It is unreasonable to expect the engineer to
continue this process where he left off, after a delay of perhaps weeks,
while missing data are being supplied.
Consequently, upon receipt, each form must be completely checked and
prepared for engineering review. Figure 2.10 presents an overview of
this process. If the applicant requests a permit for exempt equipment
(no permit required), the completed form should be returned with the
appropriate letter of explanation. If, for example, a filing fee has not
been paid, the application should be returned with the proper notifi-
cation. Figure 2.11 shows a typical letter to be used with incomplete
applications. Item seven can be used to list specific information that
has been omitted.
If the application does not have to be returned for any reason, it must
be logged in, assigned an ID number, and placed in a folder. All forms,
memoranda, correspondence, and evaluations pertaining to this applica-
tion must be stored in the folder.
The final step in the checking process involves the transmittal of the
application folder to the appropriate engineering review or inspection
unit.
E. Engineering Review
Plan review by engineers for the purpose of evaluating the potential
emissions of air contaminants from new equipment is a vital component
of the permit system. By prohibiting the installation of uncontrolled
-------
2.21
RECEIVE
APPLICATION
FORM
RETURN
AS
UNNECESSARY
RETURN
APPLICATION
REQUEST
FEE
RETURN
REQUEST MORE
INFORMATION
LOG IN
APPLICATION
ASSIGN
ID NUMBER
I
PREPARE
FOLDER
TRANSMIT
TO REVIEW
OR INSPECTION
UNIT
Figure 2.10 Steps in receiving and checking in a permit application
-------
2.22
HOLDS S. 1NGRAHAM, M. D.
COMMISSION ER
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
84 HOLLAND AVENUE
ALBANY, N. Y. 12208
DIVISION OF AIR RESOURCES
ALEXANDER RIHM, JR., P.E.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
5IDNEV MARLOW, f=.E.
D IREC TOR
Address reply to:
Refer to Application No:
Date:
Gentlemen:
We have received the
for the premises at
application submitted to you
Your application cannot be officially reviewed because it is incomplete
with respect to the items checked below. Please forward the material
described in these items with the least possible delay.
D
a
a
D
a
a
i.
2.
3.
A.
5.
6.
7.
Forward additional copies of form AIR 100 (total of three required)
Forward additional plan drawings (total of three required)
Forward additional elevation drawings (total of three required)
Forward additional Environmental Analysis Reports (total of three required)
Forward additional plot plans (total of three required)
Forward a letter from your client authorizing you to act as his agent
in this application.
Your prompt cooperation in furnishing necessary documents will expedite
evaluation of your application and will enable us to give you better and faster
service.
Sincerely,
AIR US (6-68)
Figure 2.11. Letter requesting additional information
-------
2.23
or poorly controlled equipment, the health and welfare of the public
is protected. Figure 2.12 depicts in flow chart form the engineering
review process.
The permit processing division of a large-size agency should have
three or four engineering units, each unit composed of five or
six engineers, plus a supervisor. When an application for a permit is
sent to the engineering unit, the supervisor receives the complete
folder. He records the date it arrives and makes a note of which
engineer he is assigning the task of evaluation.
Upon receiving the folder, the engineer registers the date in his
records, and assigns the application a priority number. When he can
begin processing the application, he decides if more information is
required before a proper determination can be reached. If additional
data are needed, he may either write or call the applicant.
He may be able to resolve the difficulty over the phone; however, an
amendment to, or some clarification of, the application in writing may
be necessary. A meeting may be scheduled to resolve a major problem.
Once the engineer is satisfied that the folder contains all the informa-
tion required, he may begin the application evaluation and perform the
engineering calculations. At the conclusion of this process, the
engineer must decide whether to issue a permit out-right, grant a permit
conditionally, or deny a permit to the applicant. A conditional permit
may specify the type of fuel that can be used, special operating con-
ditions, or process weight limitations. If a permit is denied, the
reasons for the denial should be presented to the applicant. A plan
disapproval form is shown in Figure 2.13.
After the evaluation is completed, information from the application may
be extracted and prepared for input into the various agency information
-------
2.24
SUPERVISOR
RECEIVES
APPLICATION
FOLDER
I
ASSIGNS
TO
ENGINEER
i
ENGINEER NOTES
RECEPTION
AND ASSIGNS
PRIORITY
i
FOLDER AND
APPLICATION
REVIEW
ENGINEER
NOTIFIES
APPLICANT
i
ENGINEER
RECEIVES
ADDITIONAL
DATA
I
ENGINEERING
EVALUATION
EXTRACT AND
PREPARE DATA
FOR INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
CONDITIONAL
PERMIT
Figure 2.12. Steps in the engineering review process
-------
2.25
State of New York
Department of Labor
DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
80 CENTRE STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013
ADDRESS REPLY TO:
DATE
NOTICE OF PLAN DISAPPROVAL
Plan No.
Location of System
The plans submitted by you for an installation ot alteration of an exhaust system have been disapproved for reasons
stated below:
Before approval can be given, it will be necessary for you to submit revised plans that comply with the above require-
ments. These should bejorwarded, in triplicate, along with a new "Application for Approval of Exhaust System Plan",
to the Division of Industrial Hygiene at the above address.
MORRIS KLEINFELD, M.D.
Director
For The Commissioner
IH-224 (3-66)
Figure 2.13. Plan disapproval letter
-------
2.26
files. These could include the enforcement management system, the
source registration system, the equipment inventory system, the
emission inventory system, and the permit processing system. These
systems may operate on a computer system, or they may be stored in-
dependently in file cabinets. This is largely dependent upon the
needs and resources of the agency.
If the applicant disagrees with the evaluation judgment, he may appeal
to a hearing or administrative board, or take the agency to court.
A more detailed discussion of the evaluation of the application for
permit to construct is presented in Chapter 5.
F. Engineering Inspection
The engineering inspection is an essential function in the permit
system. It follows the issuance of the permit to construct and pre-
cedes the granting of a certificate to operate. During this phase of
the cycle, the engineer has the opportunity to observe the applicant's
plant and operation of equipment. He must gather enough information
to determine whether or not agency emissions standards are being
violated. If more data are required, a source test may be requested.
A flow chart of the engineering inspection process is presented in
Figure 2.14.
If the applicant has previously received a permit to construct, it is
desirable to have the same engineer perform the inspection. For this
purpose, the engineer should maintain the folder in an agency holding
file. He must begin by reviewing all of the information available to
him pertaining to the applicant.
If a certificate to operate is being sought for existing equipment,
the process begins in the same manner in which the engineering
-------
2.27
SUPERVISOR
RECEIVES
FOLDER
0
PREPARE
FOR
INSPECTION
ASSIGNS
TO
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ASSIGNS
PRIORITY
TO FOLDER
REVIEW
OF
FOLDER
MAKE
APPOINTMENT
FOR
INSPECTION
ISSUE/DENY
OR
CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATE
*REINSPECT
**MAKE RECOMMENDATION
Figure 2.14. The engineering inspection process
-------
2.28
evaluation started. The supervisor of the engineering unit receives
the application folder, makes a note of the date, and records to which
engineer (or field enforcement officer) he is assigning the inspection
The engineer notes the date and assigns a priority to the folder.
When he begins to review it, he makes certain that sufficient data
are provided.
After he is satisfied that the folder is in order, the engineer (or
field enforcement officer) must make an appointment for his plant
visit. He then prepares a list of the information to be obtained and
observations to be made during the inspection.
At the plant, the engineer (or field enforcement officer) notes
meteorological and other physical conditions. He conducts interviews
with the owner or operator and other personnel, as necessary. The
engineer must verify that the equipment is as described in the appli-
cation. If a major discrepancy exists, the application may have to be
refiled. The engineer may rectify minor errors in the equipment
description and other similar disparities directly. If the informatio
is in order, the equipment is observed in operation.
After the inspection is completed, the engineer (or field enforcement
officer) decides if a source test is necessary before he makes his
recommendations. The possibilities are: issue a certificate to
operate, issue a conditional certificate, allow the equipment use to
continue but require a reinspection, or deny a certificate. If the
applicant is dissatisfied with the result, he may appeal to a hearing
board or take other legal action.
Chapter 7 contains a detailed description of the engineering inspection
process.
-------
2.29
G. Permit Application Equipment Status
An equipment item may require numerous permits during its usable
existence. For each case, agency policy must determine the manner in
which the various applications are handled. Table 2.1 lists the equip-
ment status types and the ways in which an agency might decide to pro-
cess them.
Table 2.1. Equipment status types and possible agency requirements
Equipment Status
Type of Permit
Engineering
Evaluation
Engineering
Inspection
xisting Equipment
few Construction
Completed Construction
hange of Ownership
ddress Location Change
quipment Alteration or
Movement within Plant
quipment Replacement
revious Permit Revoked
Derating Permit Denied
Certificate to Operate
Permit to Construct
Certificate to Operate
Certificate to Operate
Certificate to Operate
Certificate to Operate
Certificate to Operate
Certificate to Operate
Certificate to Operate
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
If replacement is not identical.
In the event of a "change of ownership," or "address location change,"
inspections are required to Verify that the equipment items have not
been modified.
-------
2.30
If an individual requests a permit for prohibited equipment or an
illegal operation, the application should be immediately denied. For
example, single-chamber incinerators may be outlawed.
A permit may be revoked if an operator is found to be violating its
conditions of use. An example may be using heavy fuel oil when light
oil is specified.
H. Issuance of the Permit
Once it is determined that the equipment meets the existing standards,
all information has been provided to the agency, and the appropriate
fees have been paid, the permit is issued. Examples of permits are
given in Figures 2.15 through 2.17.
I. Informal Hearing
An informal hearing is a meeting of the applicant with agency personnel
generally the engineer who processed the application. Such a hearing
is requested by the agency in order to aid and advise the applicant
concerning compliance with local statutes and regulations. It takes
place after the evaluation if a permit to construct is being sought,
or after the inspection if a certificate to operate is requested.
Discussions usually involve modifications to the equipment or alter-
ations in operating procedures in order to bring the equipment into
compliance with current standards. The applicant is familiarized
with the nature of his responsibilities and of agency policies and
requirements.
The conference may result in the following:
• The applicant is given additional time to correct the problems
• A compliance schedule is agreed upon;
• A series of inspections is set up;
-------
= 31
STATE OF NEW YORK
NEMRT I. OUMDM)
ALBANY. NEW YORK
Date Issued:
Expires:
Permittee:
2 O 1 Division of Air Resources
Bureau of Air Quality Control
41 State Street
Albany, New York 12207
Application Number:
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SOURCE OF AIR CONTAMINATION
Issued Pursuant to 10 NYCRR 175-180
Installation Address:
Installation Description:
Emission Source
Reference Number:
Conditions:
Deviation from approved application shall void this permit. This is not a
Certificate to Operate. Tests and/or additional air pollution control equipment may be
required prior to the Issuance of a Certificate to Operate. Not later than 30 days after
the initiation of operation notify the local public health engineer
Eric A. Seiffer, Chief
Engineering Flans Review Section
No authority is granted by this permit to operate, construct or maintain any installation
in violation of any law, statute, code, ordinance, rule or regulation of the State of
New York or any of its political subdivisions.
NON-TRANSFERABLE
POST OR FILE AT INSTALLATION ADDRESS
AIR 101 (7-70)
Figure 2.15. Sample permit to construct
-------
2.32
AFC'136
Rev. n/69
tew.
AGENT
DEPARTMENT OF AIR RESOURCES
51 Astor Place, New York, N. Y. 10003
Date Issued:
ROBERT N. RICKLES, P.E., Commisstoner
OWNER
Ac-plication Wo:
tor
CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION
Location of Equipment or Apparatus:
The holder of this certificate shall comply with the conditions con-
tained in this Certificate es well as all applicable provisions of
the Air Pollution Control Code.
This certificate shall not be transferable and may be revoked at any
time pursuant to the Hew York Air Pollution Control Code.
By:
Head, Division of Industrial Processes
KEEP CERTIFICATE ON PREMISE HEAR EQUIPMENT
INSTALLED:
ALFRED PIERATTI
Director of Engineering
For the Commissioner
Figure 2.16. Sample certificate to operate (city agency)
-------
2.33
^^
^^
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF AIR AND WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
OPERATION PERMIT
FOR
PERMIT NO. DATE
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 403.061 (16) OF CHAPTER 403 FLORIDA STAT-
UTES AND CHAPTER 17-4 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE .CODE, THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED TO:
FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
LOCATED AT:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICATION DATED
AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATEMENTS AND SUPPORTING DATA ENTERED THEREIN,
ALL OF WHICH ARE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND ARE CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS
PERMIT.
THIS PERMIT SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUANCE UNTIL REVOKED OR
SURRENDERED AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS OF THE STATE AND THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT.
DAVID H. SCOTT, CHIEF VINCENT D. PATTON
BUREAU OF PERMITTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FORM l-l
Figure 2.17. Sample certificate to operate (state agency)
-------
2.34
• Arrangements are made for entering the plant if special
circumstances exist; or
• The applicant is directed to equipment experts and manufacturers]
If he is dissatisfied with the results of the meeting, the owner or
operator is advised to request an administrative hearing.
J. Hearing Board Decisions
Hearing boards are usually quasi-judicial bodies provided for by the
basic state acts dealing with air pollution control. The board's
makeup should include attorneys and licensed engineers, preferably
mechanical or chemical. Procedures governing the operation of these
boards may be quite informal, or as formal as those of actual judicial
bodies including power of subpoena, provision for cross-examination,
and strict rules of evidence.
Hearing boards have a variety of functions depending upon basic
legislation and the type of rules and regulations utilized in the
control of air pollution. Several of the main functions are dis-
cussed below:
1. Variances
Variances are temporary authorizations to discharge air con-
taminants in excess of the statutory limit. Usually they are
issued for periods of time not to exceed a year without additional
review and in no case may a public nuisance be allowed to exist
as a result of a variance. Submission of acceptable plans for or
progress towards controlling the particular air pollution problem
is the usual condition for granting a variance.
Hearings on variances are equity proceedings to the extent that
private losses are balanced against the public good in each case.
-------
2.35
A typical case in which a variance might be justified could
involve a manufacturing plant employing several hundred people
and producing a product sold in a highly competitive market. Air
pollution in excess of mass emissions standards is discharged,
but no public nuisance appears to exist. The plant has definite
attainable plans for installing control equipment, but installation
will take 3 months. A variance to operate during this period is
requested on the grounds that several hundred people will be put
out of work if the plant is forced to close for this period and
the plant may also face the permanent loss of at least a portion
of the market for their product. The granting of a variance for a
3 month period on the condition that suitable control equipment be
installed would be a likely outcome of such a hearing.
The advantage of a hearing board for granting exceptions to statutes
is that the air pollution control agency does not have to compromise
its role as the organization responsible for enforcing rules and
regulations. It has little excuse for not acting in a vigorous
manner to secure abatement of all air pollution sources. The
variance procedure can be abused, of course, if inordinately long
periods are authorized in the variance or if variances are renewed
on insufficient technical or economic grounds.
2. Appeals of Permit Denial
A permit system not only provides the agency a great deal of power
to take preventive action against air pollution, but also gives it
substantial responsibility to exercise this power wisely. It is
conceivable that mistakes in judgment of a technical nature may
be made by agency engineers reviewing applications, particularly
permits to construct. The person seeking to operate or install a
process or item of control equipment, if he feels an incorrect
-------
2.36
decision has been made, is offered a further opportunity to gain
permission through appeal to the hearing board which is not a
costly court procedure.
3. Issuance of Abatement Orders
Hearing boards may be authorized to issue abatement orders follow-
ing a hearing requested by the agency. An alternative method
allows abatement orders to be issued by the executive head of an
air pollution control agency. In this case, the board may be
authorized or required to review such orders before they can be
enforced. In a similar manner, findings of violation by the air
pollution control officer may have to be confirmed by a hearing
board before court action can be taken.
3. Revocation and Suspension of Permits
Whenever equipment which has been granted a certificate to operate
develops a chronic history of non-compliance, the air pollution
control officer may revoke the permit.
Permits may also be suspended by the agency if the permittee fails
to furnish required information, analyses, plans, or specification!
If the permit is suspended, the permittee may petition the board
for a hearing to determine whether or not the permit was properly
suspended. Accordingly, the hearing board may reinstate the per-
mit, sustain the suspension, or set forth conditions which must be
met before reinstatement is granted. The agency may reinstate a
suspended permit on its own discretion.
K. Court Decisions
Hearing board decisions may be appealed to the courts by the agency,
companies, or individuals. Agencies may use the courts as a means
-------
2.37
of forcing violators to comply. Maintenance of a public nuisance
is a crime and punishable by criminal sanctions. The two common
categories of crimes are misdemeanors and felonies. Where violations
of public nuisance or other air pollution statutes are declared to
be a crime, they are inevitably treated as misdemeanors. Misdemeanor
penalties may involve both fines and imprisonment with a common
maximum penalty of $§00 or a year in jail. State prison sentences
are not allowed for misdemeanors. It is possible in some states,
however, to impose felony penalties on conviction of conspiracy to
commit a misdemeanor.
The use of civil procedures to secure enforcement of air pollution
statutes serves as an alternative or supplementary approach to that
of criminal sanctions in many jurisdictions. The injunction is one
of the traditional and most powerful tools available. It seeks to
prevent a future action by a polluter rather than to punish a past
2
action. Kennedy suggests that it is the "big gun" to be used mainly
when dealing with a large and continuing violation, since injunctive
3
procedures can become very lengthy. Brecher and Nestle state that
the courts often assert that a permanent injunction is an extraordinary
remedy to be granted sparingly. The courts also "balance the hard-
ships" in injunction cases.
Another civil approach is available when the legislature provides for
monetary forfeiture following a determination that an abatement order
or regulation has been violated. Some states have provided for very
heavy monetary penalties particularly for violation of an abatement
order issued by a variance board following a hearing. These actions
may take precedence over many other civil matters and therefore the
delay in enforcement is minimized.
-------
2.38
II. INTERFACES WITH OTHER CONTROL AGENCY FUNCTIONS
Permit processing interacts with nearly all agency functions. These
interactions may be viewed from the standpoint of (1) input information
obtained from other agency functions that is necessary to complete the
processing of permit applications, and (2) output information generated
from the permit system to satisfy the needs of other agency operations.
Examples of sources of input information are field facility inspection
reports supplied by enforcement personnel. These include past field
reports and violation notices, and special reports or investigations
requested by permit engineers. Source tests provided by the source testing
services of the agency represent another important source of data input.
Output functions, as a rule, are only indirectly related to the task of
permit processing. Output arises from the permit system as a whole, i.e.,
as a result of summarizing or aggregating information which has been
extracted from the individual permit case files. These would include, for
example, source listings; summaries of permits pending, approved and
denied; status of cases being heard before the hearing board; and infor-
mation suitable for the updating of emission inventories and scheduling
of engineering and field enforcement assignments.
One of the most important types of permit system output is emission
inventory information. The permit system will provide (1) a highly accuraj
and complete list of new sources and their grid locations, (2) exact equip--
ment inventories and (3) the most precise estimates of emission rates and
equipment operating schedules available. This information, when evaluated
can be extracted either manually or by computerized techniques to continuof
upgrade the regional emission inventory.
The design of the permit system should adequately take into account these
input and output requirements and should provide for the cooperation neede
to institute a system that encourages exchange of information, as illusttf
in Figure 2.18.
-------
2.39
REPORTS
Emissions Inventory
Compliance Schedules
Inspection Schedules
Emergency Operations
Meteorological Data
Air Quality Data
Court Case Data
Hearing Board Data
i
ADMINISTRATION
Feedback
Trend Information
Data Deficiencies
I
*ermit
System
T
Field
Enforcement
Operations
Emissions
Inventory
r~\
7
Air Quality
Monitoring
Hearing
Board
Figure 2.18. Information flow in an air pollution control agency
-------
2.40
A. Data Requirements
Cost-effective operation of the permit system will particularly depend
upon assistance from the field enforcement unit and source testing
services. This help will come in the form of operational and emissions
data needed to complete the assessment necessary for issuing certificates
to operate.
1. Inspection
The granting of a certificate to operate depends upon the successful
completion of an inspection of the equipment during its most demanding
operational mode. This may not be possible during a single inspection
but may require a series of observations over a specified length of
time to provide the data needed for making the pass/fail decision.
To accomplish this task, field enforcement personnel may be employed
to observe the process in operation under specified conditions. This
will not only supply the engineer with decision-making data, but also
will give the field enforcement officer first-hand experience with
new equipment in his area (see Chapter 7, Inspection Techniques).
2. Source Tests
When it has been determined that a source test is required before a
certificate to operate is granted, the cooperation of at least two
agency divisions will be needed. The source test team must be
apprised of the test conditions and the field enforcement officer
must be informed of his role in the test, e.g., checking for visible
emissions, conducting an odor survey, or assisting in the recording
of field data.
The engineer responsible for processing the permit application should
schedule the test, taking into account the work backlog of the test
team and the availability of field enforcement personnel. Agency man)
ment must set priorities where demand exceeds the source test service!
available.
-------
2.41
B. Data Outputs
Many functions of the air pollution control agency receive information
from the permitting division germane to their operations. These data
outputs provide the basis for planning, reporting, and legal action.
The following items are representative of this data:
• Number, description and location of equipment issued permits;
• Number of permits denied by equipment category;
• Number of conditional permits issued;
• Emissions estimates;
• Estimates of emission reductions;
• Variances in effect;
• Manpower summaries and projections;
• Budgetary requirements;
• Number of source tests requested/completed; and
• Emergency/episode data.
This information will flow into several areas culminating in reports
vital to the administration of the agency. It will provide the air
pollution control officer with the facts he requires to man, operate,
and administer his organization to meet the goals of the control agency.
-------
2.42
REFERENCES
1. Lunche, R.G. , E.E. Lemke, R.L. Weimer, J. Dorsey and J.A. Verssen (ed.).
Administration of the Permit System, Fourth Edition. Air Pollution
Control District, County of Los Angeles, California. January 1968,
p. 92-93.
2. Kennedy, H.W. The Formulation and Adoption of Reasonable Rules and
Regulations. 55th Annual Meeting of the APCA, Chicago. May 20-24, 1962.
3. Brecher, J.J. and M.D. Nestle. Environmental Law Handbook, California
Continuing Education at the Bar, Berkeley, California. 1970.
4. Lunche, R.G., E.E. Lemke, and J.A. Verssen. Administration of a Permit
System. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 19,
No. 1. January 1969.
5. Loquercio, P.A. and W.J. Murphy. How an Effective Permit System Works.
61st Annual Meeting of the APCA, St. Paul, Minnesota. June 1968.
-------
CHAPTER 3
DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
I. INTRODUCTION
Many air pollution control agencies currently find themselves in a position
in which their responsibilities are increasing, the amount of data and
records that they must process is rapidly expanding, and trained and ex-
perienced personnel are in short supply. Information systems adapted- to
the specific needs of these agencies could provide significant assistance
by storing, managing and retrieving data essential to operations. Such an
information system would free professional staff members from tedious
recordkeeping and reporting tasks, facilitate the daily performance of the
agency, and help it to realize the full measure of air pollution control.
II. SPECIFICATION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
In order to properly design an information system for a particular air
pollution control agency, an extensive systems analysis must be performed
to determine how to satisfy most effectively and efficiently the infor-
mation management needs of the agency. The analysis must consider all of
the individual elements which are necessary to the system, and how they
may be combined into an ordered and effectual operating unit. However,
the designer is often hampered by having to adhere to rigid restrictions
such as limited fiscal and manpower resources, specific requests of the
users, and a need to complete the task in a relatively short period of
time. Nevertheless, the result of this analysis must be an informational
document (The System Specifications) that describes what the system will
accomplish and how it will operate. The document enumerates the functions
to be performed within the scope of the available assets. If the resources
are limited, certain tasks, judged not to be extremely important, may be
omitted from the plan.
-------
3.2
The initial design of an information system should not be considered as
an end in itself, but rather as the first phase of an expandable system.
Consequently, all functions do not have to be included at this point.
However, provision to add them to the system, as the need arises, should
be made without the necessity of scrapping the original programs.
In addition, the design, implementation, and utilization of the informa-
tion system will all be elements of a complex learning process for the
agency. As agency personnel gain experience with the system, it is to
be expected that modifications will be desired. The incorporation of
changes and the expansion of the system must be important considerations
of the initial design.
III. ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM
This section will discuss all the important elements which must be in-
cluded in the System Specifications document describing the permit system
of an air pollution control agency. Other related functions performed
by such agencies will also be considered.
A. Data Base Design
A data base is that subset of information available to the system,
collected from the set of all available information and organized
in a useful and functional manner. It must be generated (readied for
use) and it must be capable of being updated, in order to continuously
provide meaningful responses to its users.
The data base design is significant because of the impact it has on
costs throughout its life as part of the system. For example, if
extraneous information is left in the data base, costs are increased
for all data handling, retrieval, and updating operations. As a
-------
3.3
result, only the minimum data required for the effective utilization
of the information system should be entered.
Figure 3.1 depicts a data base that might be considered typical for
use in permit system applications. Each component has a number, name,
format, and definition. The component definition has been inserted
in order to clarify each item. The number and name were included to
conform to the requirements of the data retrieval system for which
this data base was prepared. The use of this data base will be il-
lustrated later in this chapter.
Using the data base in Figure 3.1 as an example, the following
points should be made:
• For each permit number, all of the information indicated in the
associated components must be supplied to the data base, where
applicable. This information, associated with item C2 (PEEMITNO),
is defined as an entry. Each entry in the data base must contain
a unique component, one whose value is different from that of any
other entry. In this example, the permit number is that item. No
entry in the data base may have a permit number identical with the
permit number of a preceding entry.
• Items C4 through C7 may be considered as unnecessary in many data
bases. This information may be stored in a rolle-flex or similar
file, and may be retrieved by direct lookup of the permit number.
It is unlikely that information concerning the company name, address,
telephone number or responsible company member will be needed for
comparison with other information, or that it will be utilized in math-
ematical computations. Consequently, if these items are included, main-
tenance of the data base becomes more costly. There are circumstances
-------
3.4
COMPONENT
NUMBER
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
Cll
C12
CIS
C14
C15
C16
C17
CIS
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
C34
C35
C36
C37
C38
C39
C40
C41
C42
C43
COMPONENT
NAME
PERMIT1
COMPONENT
FORMAT
PERMITNO (NNNNNN) ,
SORT-A
UNIT (17S)
COMPANY (20S)
ADDRESS (43S)
MEMBER (15S)
PHONE (14S)
GRID (NNN)
ZONE (NNN)
SIC (NN)
STATUS (SSSSSSSS)
APPLIED (NNNNNN) /
APPLYMO (NN)
APPLYYR (NN)
BUILD (NNNNNN) /
BUILDMO
BUILDYR
OPERATE
OPERMO
NN)
NN)
NNNNNN) /
NN)
OPERYR (NN)
LASTSPEC (NNNNNN) /
LASTMO (NN)
LASTYR
NEXTSPEC
NEXTMO
(NN)
(NNNNNN) /
(NN)
NEXTYR (NN)
INSPECTS
YRSPECTS
ENGINEER
NNN)
NN)
IBS)
BASIC (NNNNNNNN) $
CONTROL (NNNNNNNN) $
FEE
SOX
CO
NOX
NNNNN $
NNNNN
(NNNNN
' NNNNN
PART (NNNNN)
HIGHHC (NNNNN)
LOWHC
ODOR
XTRA1
XTRA2
NNNNN)
N)
NNNNNNNNNN)
NNNNNNNNNN)
XTRA3 (NNNNNNNNNN)
XTRA4 (NNNNNNNNNN)
N = numerical
S = all characters
COMPONENT
DEFINITION
Data Base Name
Permit Number
Equipment Unit
Company
Company Address
Responsible Company Member
Company Phone
Map Grid Number
Inspection Zone Number
Standard Industrial Classification
Permit Status
Application Date
Application Month
Application Year
Construction Start Date
Construction Start Month
Construction Start Year
Operation Start Date
Operation Start Month
Operation Start Year
Last Inspection Date
Last Inspection Month
Last Inspection Year
Next Inspection Date
Next Inspection Month
Next Inspection Year
Total Number of Inspections
Number of Inspections in Calendar Year
Inspector/Engineer
Basic Unit Cost
Control Equipment Cost
Permit Fee
Sulphur Oxide Emissions (Ibs/hour)
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (Ibs/hour)
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions (Ibs/hour)
Particulate Emissions (Ibs/hour)
Hydrocarbon (High Reactive) Emissions (Ibs/hour)
Hydrocarbon (Low Reactive) Emissions (Ibs/hour)
Odor Classification
Extra Component
Extra Component
Extra Component
Extra Component
/ = date format
$ = monetary values
Figure 3.1. Permit system data base
-------
3.5
under which retaining this information in the data base may be
justified. This decision must be made by those individuals
responsible for the system's development.
• The five dates specified in components C12 through C26 are overlayed
items. This means, for example, that if the permit application
date is to be retrieved, item C12 (APPLIED) must be specified.
However, both the application month, item CIS (APPLYMO), and the
application year, item C14 (APPLYYR), may be recovered individually
or together. This illustration is included to demonstrate to the
data base designer that occasionally subelements, as well as the
entire data element, should be retrievable on command.
• The final four components, C40 through C43, have been specified
as spare items in each entry of the data base. If at some later
date, additional information is to be added, space has been pro-
vided without necessitating the restructuring of the previously
prepared data.
B. Data Preparation
The specific data elements that are selectively chosen to be entered
into the data base must undergo extensive preprocessing and checking
in order to ensure their overall quality. A long-held data processing
axiom is "garbage in, garbage out." It refers to the fact that data
bases containing information that is subject to error and incon-
sistencies cannot yield meaningful responses when queried.
Information included in a permit system data base will likely be de-
rived from permit applications, engineering evaluations, inspections
and reports, source tests, and other documents. Those individuals
responsible for completing all forms and reports should be encouraged
-------
3.6
to use consistent terms and units of measure. The forms used should
allow for the direct transfer of the information to automatic data
processing storage mediums (see Forms Design, Section V).
Data that are not subject to being recorded on the above forms must
be enumerated separately on coding sheets, then merged with
the other data either before or after the data base is generated.
The method used depends primarily on the amount of data and the costs
involved.
Before the data base is generated, all forms and coding sheets should
be checked to verify that the units of measure are the same through-
out, and that the other information is correct. After generation, all
stored data should be verified to make certain that the individual per
mit number entries have been created properly. These steps are necessi
to authenticate the character of the data base and give confidence in
its use to those who may query it.
C. Data Base Updates
Updating a data base is the process of removing information which is
no longer relevant or of use, and adding data that have recently been
made available. If this procedure must be performed frequently, it
can become tedious and expensive. Often, delaying a modification
in order to confirm its accuracy will be preferable to changing
the data base incorrectly or unnecessarily.
A cardinal rule to follow when updating is to always maintain one or
more backup copies of the data base. This backup is required to
facilitate the adjustment of erroneous modifications. If a backup
were not available, correct information might be lost.
-------
3.7
Quite naturally, all information that is added to the data base should
be verified just as the original elements were. Often updating costs
can be reduced by accumulating modifications until a significant
number exist, and making all changes at once. This would only pertain
to cases in which the new information is not absolutely necessary
to the system.
D. Data Retrieval
An effective information system should provide for the retrieval of
several categories of responses from the data base. These responses
must be presented to the user in a form in which they are easily
understood and can be utilized in the informational and decision-
making processes. No special deciphering and arranging should be
necessary.
Among the appropriate types of data retrievals are the following:
• Specific data elements—These are direct responses to definite
queries of the data base. Examples are:
1. Next inspection date for permit number 167328.
2. CO emissions in Ibs./hr. for permit number 109062.
• Complete entries—These are the entire complement of stored data
relating to a permit number.
• Logical responses—These represent the ability to selectively
retrieve information subject to indicated conditions. Such a query
may have one or many possible responses with several data items in
each. Examples of this type of inquiry are:
1. List permit number and inspection date for all equipment having
a status of pending or conditional.
-------
3.8
2. List permit number, status, and control equipment cost for all
equipment with CO emissions greater than 100 lbs./hr. and NO^
emissions greater than 200 Ibs/hr.
• Statistical analysis—For most permit systems, the ability to
perform extensive statistical analysis is unnecessary. Generally,
only the capability to obtain sums and means for a whole region
or by specific grid areas is required. However, the ability to
perform more sophisticated statistical calculations would be an
advantageous feature.
• Reports—This is the ability to retrieve qualified layouts of
information on a demand basis. The report configuration may be
specified once and applied weekly, monthly, or on an as-needed
• basis, or it may be employed when it is created.
The types of data retrievals listed above are presented only to depict
desirable traits of an information system. It is possible to utilize
a system with fewer capabilities, the primary difference being the
manner in which the user requires the data to be selected.
E. Turnaround
In addition to the types of data retrievals that may be chosen, one
must also be concerned with the time it takes for a response. The
period from the initiation of the query of the data base to the
receipt of the response is defined as the "turnaround time." It may
be as short as a few seconds if a conversational system is being used,
or as long as a few days if a busy batch installation is utilized.
With regard to permit systems in particular, a very short turnaround
time must be classified more as a convenience than as a necessity.
It is a rare occasion when an exceedingly short response time is re-
quired. In most cases, overnight turnaround would be sufficient.
-------
3.9
The acceptability of a conversational system with the above-illustrated
retrieval capabilities relates to the investigative continuity of the
engineer involved. If he desires to obtain particular information
from the data base, then forcing him to wait many hours or overnight
for the response may tend to disrupt his work patterns and thought
processes.
F. Documentation
The useful life of an information system is extremely dependent upon
the quality of its associated documentation. The documentation must
consist of a complete System Description volume, and an easy-to-follow
User's Guide. The former is vital if changes are required for the
system. The individuals performing the modifications may not be the
same persons who originally participated in the design and programming.
Without adequate flow charts and descriptions, their task might be
much more difficult. The latter is necessary to continually train
engineers and technicians in the use of the system in order to main-
tain its operation at peak capacity. The User's Guide should describe
all possible input configurations in great detail and provide examples
to avoid confusion.
IV. DATA ELEMENTS
The system for issuing permits to construct and certificates to operate
receives inputs from field enforcement, source testing, and business
management sources, and provides data to all facets of the agency. It is
therefore necessary to detail the overall agency information needs as
well as those that pertain to the permit function.
-------
3.10
A. Application Data Components
A well-designed application form is essential for the economic
operation of an information system. The form should be designed
so that it may be completed by typewriter, is compatible with
automated data processing, and still provides the essential engineer-
ing data elements. The following items are the minimum necessary:
1. Name of company or individual which will appear on the Permit/
Certificate
2. Address at which equipment is located
3. Mailing address if different from equipment location
4. Description of equipment/process for which the permit is requested]
5. Previous ownership of equipment (if any)
6. Status of construction
a. New construction
b. Modification of existing equipment
c. Change of ownership
d. Change of location
e. Construction started without a permit
f. Estimated construction start date
g. Estimated construction completion date
h. Duration of testing and running time
i. Date when equipment will be ready for inspection
7. Estimated cost of equipment
8. General nature of business where equipment is located
9. Signature of responsible member of company (type or print name all
10. Signature and registration number of a Professional Engineer
(P.E.) (if required to sign application)
11. Signature of individual who completed application if other than
owner or P.E.
-------
3.11
For selected equipment or processes, the following information should
also appear on the application:
1. Operating schedule, hrs./day and days/week
2. Process weight—specify the type and quantity of material charged
to the process per unit time
3. Fuel used
a. Gaseous fuel—specify types, use rate in cubic feet per hour
b. Liquid fuel—specify fuel oil grade, use rate in gallons
per hour and preheat temperature, if any
c. Solid fuel—specify type of fuel, heating value, firing rate
4. Storage of liquids or gases
a. Vessel capacity
b. Design details
c. Names of liquids, vapors or gases stored
d. Received vapor pressure
e. Pressure at which gas or vapor is stored
B. Permit Classification and Unitization
Useful and pertinent information may be compiled from the operation
of a system issuing permits to construct and certificates to operate.
This information can be organized by the type of equipment, industrial
process, type of emissions, rate of emissions, source concentration by
grid and other categorical breakdowns. Therefore, it is necessary to
be able to classify equipment which will require a permit into several
broad categories: equipment capable of emitting air contaminants,
equipment designed for the control or capture of air contaminants,
the types of air contaminants emitted and the industrial classification
in which the process or equipment is used. Terms commonly used are:
• Basic equipment ]
potential source of air contaminant emissions
• Process system
• Air pollution control equipment
• Air pollution control systems
-------
3.12
Dividing equipment and processes into units is a reasonable approach
to defining logical boundaries for a single certificate to operate.
It allows the agency to specify absolutely all the machinery and
devices for which each certificate to operate is issued. Unitization
also aids the field enforcement officer by enabling him to identify
equipment more easily and to determine if any unauthorized
changes or modifications have been made. The Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District defines a permit unit as a "...grouping of
items functioning as a whole which will be allowed to be
a single application for a permit."1 The principles employed in
determining the permit unit are;
1. Grouping of Individual Items
A permit unit will include all equipment and appurtenances
for the processing of bulk material which are united
physically by conveyer or chute or pipe or hose for the
movement of product material provided that no portion or
item of the group will operate separately with product
material not common to the group operation. Such a grouping
is considered as encompassing all the equipment used from
the point of initial charging or feed to the point or
points of discharge of material where such discharge will
(1) be stored, or (2) proceed to a separate process, or
(3) be physically separated from the equipment comprising
the group.
2. Storage Equipment
Storage equipment is any tank, bin, vat, vessel or other
device, employed to receive and store any bulk material for
future use. A storage vessel can be included with the per-
mit unit from which it receives material if the material
is solid, received from only one source permit unit and
physically united to the source permit unit by conveyer,
chute, pipe or hose. The storage vessel will be considered
a separate permit unit if the material being stored is a
liquid or a gas, or is received from more than one source
permit unit or is not united physically to the source
permit unit.
-------
3.13
3. Parallel Equipment
Individual equipment items, or groupings of equipment,
serving a parallel function, operated independently and
not physically united for the flow of material will be
considered as separate permit units.
4. Spare or Standby Equipment
a. Spare or standby equipment, which is a separate permit
unit in itself (i.e., a boiler, a degreaser, a spray
booth, a unit of air pollution control equipment, etc.)
requires a separate permit regardless of how infrequently
it may be used.
b. Spare or standby equipment, which is not a separate
permit unit in itself (i.e., an oil burner unit, an
electric motor, etc.) does not require a separate
permit, nor shall its specific energy or capacity
ratings be taken into account unless its ratings are
not identical to the ratings of the equipment it is
intended to relieve. In such cases, only the greater
of the two ratings shall be used to establish the
permit fee,
5. Combustion Equipment
Any fired heating equipment using exclusively natural gas
or LPG will be considered as a part of the permit unit it
serves. Any fired device, where the equipment is capable
of utilizing a fuel other than natural gas or LPG, and
where the products of combustion do not intermingle with
the product, presents a separate air pollution problem and
will be considered as a separate permit unit.
6. Shared Equipment
Equipment which operates as a part of more than one permit
unit, either alternately or simultaneously, is a part of
each permit unit with which it is associated.
This approach has proven extremely helpful in categorizing equipment
and processes and strongly lends itself to data processing and infor-
mation retrieval.
-------
3.14
C. Classification of Equipment
1. Standard Industrial Classification
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) numbering system
serves as the basis for the "Air Pollution Manual of Coding."
It presents a method of classifying industries and equipment
having a potential for emitting air contaminants. This technique
of classification describes the industry, basic equipment re-
lated to a "unit process," and control devices as follows:
a. Standard Industrial Classification is a four-digit number
designating an activity found in a specified industry. The
major industrial categories are two-digit numbers such as:
20, Food and Kindred Products. Coffee roasting is 2095,
which indicates that it is a subset of the food industry.
b. Basic Equipment or Process Code is divided into 19 categories,
These categories are based upon a loose interpretation of
unit operations adapted to the particular requirements of
this system. The code is a three-digit number relating to
the major classification of the "unit process" which it covers]
e.g., 2, Heat Transfer; 201, Wire Insulation Incinerator.
c. Control Equipment Code is a two digit number derived from
seven groups of air pollution control devices: e.g., 00 group
control by combustion, 01 group—catalytic combustion. This
presents a method of combining the basic control equipment
codes to form a complete operating unit.
2. Equipment Specifications
Equipment specifications are valuable data elements in permit
systems. They aid administrative personnel in determining the
-------
3.15
effectiveness of classes of equipment and numbers of specific
units in use. These elements include descriptions of capacity,
size, throughput and power needs. For basic equipment it is
necessary to detail the primary function of the unit, its
capacity, whether it is continuous or batch, the length of each
batch operation, the material processed and the product. Air
pollution control equipment is usually a part of a system.
The system's descriptive elements are capacity in CFM, fan or
compressor horsepower, and number and type of basic equipment
units or processes served. The specifications for the air
pollution control device must include design efficiency,
operating temperature, cleaning method and precise operating
characteristics (air-to-cloth ratio, water-to-air ratio,
rapping cycle, bag material, etc.).
3. Contaminant Code
The equipment codes and classifications must be associated with
the types of air contaminants emitted from the basic equipment
A
and captured by the air pollution control system. SAROAD,
Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data, provides an excellent
method for coding and classifying these data elements. The
manual prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Programs, provides a standard coding procedure for suspended
particulates, settled particulates, respirable particulates, gases
and vapors, biocides, allergens and pathogens, atmospheric and
related parameters, basic effects, fractional particulates and a
miscellaneous category.
D. Additional Data Elements
Additional data elements are neither descriptive nor quantitative
in nature. They are relevant as operational factors of basic and
-------
3.16
control equipment and contain information from field enforcement
records.
1. Field Enforcement Records
The enforcement records include routine inspection reports,
recorded violations, legal and hearing board actions, nuisance
complaints, and emergency action codes. They are all cross-
referenced to a specific piece of equipment or process authorized
by a certificate to operate.
2. Emissions Data
Quantitative and qualitative data pertaining to emissions is
derived from source testing. The associated elements include
operational characteristics such as process weight, length of
cycle, the part of the cycle during which the test was conducted,
total time of test, contaminants the test was designed to
measure, contaminants collected during the test and the quantity
of the material collected.
During the evaluation of an application for a permit (see
Chapter 5), assessments are made of anticipated contaminant
emissions. These data are calculated from published emissions
factors, statistical estimates of contaminated emissions taken
from source tests, or other factors used by the agency for
evaluation criteria. The information elements are calculated
emission rates of contaminants in pounds per hour or grains/SCFM,
the composition of the emissions, the gross emission rate per
operating -day (number of hours of process operation) , the estimate
of the contaminants captured by the air pollution control
equipment, the anticipated efficiency of the control device and
the location of the source of emissions by grid.
-------
3.17
3. Nuisance Data
Permit information systems should include data relative to potential
nuisances caused by the operation of basic equipment and processes.
The information is derived from odor ratings, dust fall, soiling
surveys, property and material damage, plume rise and fall, and
diffusion calculations. The data elements based upon these
considerations are odor rating or classification (Kenning*s
Odor Classification, Croker-Henderson Classification or others),
prevailing wind direction, location and distance to nearest
building, calculated concentrations down wind, estimated dust
fall and corrosive nature of emissions.
V. APPLICATION FORMS DESIGN
The application form performs an important service in the operation of a
permit system. It contains virtually all the information available to
the agency concerning the use or possible use of a unit of equipment.
The decision to grant or deny a permit to construct or a certificate to
operate is significantly based upon this data. Therefore, the application
forms utilized by the agency should contain all necessary information to
ensure that judgments of the agency are rendered in the best interests of
the public.
It is desirable for the form to be as brief as possible, but data quality
should not be sacrificed for brevity. Some agencies have found it
necessary to employ a general application form for most categories of
equipment, supplemented by additional specialized forms which supply
detailed data for a specific class of devices.
An example of this is the forms used by the Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District for "Storage Tanks for Liquids, Vapors and/or
Gases." The special form "Storage Tank Summary" (Figure 3.2) provides all
-------
3.18
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
434 SOUTH SAN PEDRO STREET. LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90013 MADISON 9-4711
STORAGE TANK SUMMARY
(See REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS)
ONE CDPV OF THIS FORM MUST BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY FOR EACH TANK
AND MUST ACCOMPANY THE TRIPLICATE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT (FORM 400-A).
1. BUSINESS LICENSE NAME OF CORPORATION, COMPANY, INDIVIDUAL OIHINHt OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY UNDER WHICH APPLICATION
(FORM 400. A) IS SUBMITTED: "
2. TANK LOCATION:
3. TANK IDENTIFICATION (NUMBER OR NAME):
4. TANK CAPACITY: BARRELS GALLONS
5. TANK DIMENSIONS: „,.„„„ ueinuT LI«Tll .,OTM
6. TANK SHAPE: CYLINDRICAL O
7. TANK MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION: STEEL Cl
SPHERICAL O OTHER SHAPE L~l I1ESCRI8E..
WOOD n OTHER f~) SPECIFY
9. TANK CONDITION: GOOD CD
10. TANK STATUS: NEW CONSTRUCTION C]
II. TYPE OF TANK: FIXED ROOF Cl
(CHECK ALL APPLICABLE) FLOAT ING ROOF Q
12. IF TANK IS TO HAVE A FLOATING ROOF, SUPPLY THE F
TYPE OF ROOF: DOUBLE DECK CD
TYPE OF SHELL | — ]
CONSTRUCTION: RIVETED L_l
FAIR O POOR LZ]
ALTERATION C3
PRESSURE 1 ) INTERNALLY HEATED [_J UNDERGROUND t_J
OPEN TOP O INSULATED O OTHER 1 1
OLLOWING INFORMATION:
PONTOON !~l OTHER ["I DESCRIBE
WELDED! 1 OTHER f~l ncfroiac
l3- IF TANK IS TO HAVE ANY OTHER TYPE OF ROOF OR COVER (OR NONE AT ALL), DESCRIBE:
M. VENT VALVE DATA: INDICATE TYPE, NUMBER, SETTINGS AND VAPOR DISPOSAL:
NUMBER PRESSURE
SETTING
:OMBINATION
PRESSURE
VACUUM
OPEN
VACUUM DISCHARGING TO: (CHECK)
SETTING ATMOSPHERE VAPOR CONTROL FLARE
15. NAME ALL LIQUIDS, VAPORS, SASES OR MIXTURES OF SUCH MATERIALS TO BE STORED IN THIS TANK:
DENSITY: . .... LBS/GAL. (OR ) °A.P.I.
16. TEMPERATURES AT WHICH THE ABOVE LISTED MATERIALS ARE TO BE STORED IN THIS TANK;
17. IF MATERIAL STORED IS A PETROLEUM PRODUCT OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL, SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
FOR EACH MATERIAL: (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS, IF NECESSARY).
VAPOR PRFSSyRF' (.«? " 1 » '">»' Las. pro «n III. ABSriLuTr »T Of
INITIAL BOILING POINT: Of
FOR HEAVY PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ONLY:
FLASH POINT: °F
18. OPERATIONAL DATA:
AVERAGE OUTAGE: (AVERAGE DISTANCE FROM TOP OP
TANK SHELL TO LIQUID SURFACE) rr
TANK TURNOVERS PER YEAR:
19. IF MATERIAL STORED IS A SOLUTION, SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
NAMF OF SOIVfNT: NAUF OF MATFRIAL D 1 asnLI/ED •
MATFRIAI DISSOLVED: % BY WEIGHT
(OR) * BY VOLUUF (no ... /r,A, . nN
20. IF MATERIAL STORED IS A GAS OR A LIQUIFIED GAS WHICH IS NOT A PETROLEUM PRODUCT, SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
IDENTIFY THE MATERIAL:
PRESSURE AT WHICH MATERIAL IS STORED:
LBS. PER SO. IN. GAGE «T °F
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED TO DESCRIBE THE USE OF THE TANK FOR WHICH APPLICATION FOR PERMIT IS
BEING MADE ON THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 400-A : ^
SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE MEMBER OF FIRM:^^
TYPE OR PRINT NAME .....p
IKD OFFICIAL TITLE ™"Ylt
OF PERSON SIGNING _ . _. _
THIS DATA FORM. 1 1 IL.C
16-50089
Form 400-C-9
Figure 3.2. Special application form for storage tanks
-------
3.19
the data (with the exception of the equipment location drawings) requested
by the "District" for the engineering evaluation of a permit to construct
the vessel. The form is designed to use check lists which are practicable,
provide sufficient space for additional data and can be completed by type-
writer for clarity. The questions posed on the application usually require
one word or numeric answers; thus, the form is compact and allows for a
large quantity of data to be entered.
The additional general data are supplied on a separate form, 400-A
(Figure 3.3), which must accompany the special form. This form is more
general and therefore utilizes fewer check-off answers. However, it is
well-spaced, provides sufficient room for answering detailed questions
and may also be completed by use of a typewriter. Both forms come com-
plete with instruction sheets (Figures 3.4 and 3.5). These data are then
applied in the permit evaluation demonstrated in Chapter 5.
The form must be designed not only to provide.the needed data, but also to
fulfill additional requirements. The potential applicant should be able to
complete it without difficulty or need to contact the agency for assistance
frequently. Agency personnel must be able to retrieve information
from the application easily. Finally, the form should be constructed
so that selected data elements may be entered into a computerized infor-
mation system.
If an agency plans to install a totally manual permit system, the extra
effort necessary to make its application forms compatible with data
processing will be worthwhile. It will eliminate the necessity
of redesigning the applications if an information system is utilized at
a later date. No time will be wasted to phase out one type of form while
phasing in another. Past applications will be immediately usable in the
new system.
-------
3.20
00 NOT REMOVE CARBONS OR SEPARATE
Three white copies must be submitted.
Yellow copy should be retained by applicant.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
434 SOUTH SAN PEDRO STREET. LOS ANGELES. CALIF. 900J3 MADISON 9-4711
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT AND PERMIT TO OPERATE
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
USE ONE APPLICATION FORM 'IOQ-A FOR EACH PERMIT UNIT OF BASIC EQUIPMENT AND ONE APPLICATION FORM <*00-A FOR EACH
PERMIT UMT OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT, CALL MA 9-4711, EXT. 66165 FOR ASSISTANCE.
A $40 FILING PEE MUST ACCOMPANY EACH APPLICATION. U $10 FILING FEE WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A CHANGE OF gJWERSMP
APPLICATION WHERE NO ALTERATION, ADDITION OR CHANGE OF LOCATION HAS OCCURRED.? THf TCT*L PERM IT FEE, WHICH MAT
EXCEED THE S^O FILING FEE, MUST BE PAID BEFORE PERMIT TO OPERATE CAN BE GRANTED. MAKE CHECK OR MONEY ORDER PAY-
EACH APPLICATION MUST 9E FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AMD FILED IN TRI PLICATE. ACCOMPANYING PLANS MU5T BE IN DUPLICATE.
EACH APPLICATION MUST 6E SIGNED BY A RESPONSIBLE. MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT.
1 A. PERMIT YD BE ISSUED TO:
' BUSINESS LI cEnsE NAME 6f
RECEIVE F'I: R*I '"
CITY OR CO1**!
*'• CODE
HtmtT UTOSECriHC !T»EET
B. PEB
16 |
CORPORATION
GOV'T. AGENCY
LOCATIDH. WHAT IS THE
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE?
BASIC
EQUIPMENT
HE OF SIGNER:
' s, PHONE NUMBER:
ST. LIST NO. 2-6
I.D. NO.: 7-lU
»IPK* LIU: 7t-7S ITS «0.: 7.9-S.1
n
-------
3.21
Alf* POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
434 SOUTH SAN PEDRO STREET. LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90013 MADISON 9-4711
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
FOR
STORAGE TANKS FOR LIQUIDS, VAPORS AND/OR GASES
FILL OUT REVERSE SIDE AND RETURN WITH YOUR APPLICATION (FORM 400-A4.
A $40.00 filing fee must accompany each application except in the case of a transfer
of ownership where no alteration of the permit unit or change of location has oc-
curred. For this exception the application filing fee will be $10.00. Checks or money
orders should be made payable to the Air Pollution Control District, County of Los
Angeles. The filing fee will be applied to the final fee for permit to operate.
With each application for authority to construct and permit to operate a tank to be used for
storage of any liquid, vapor or gas, the following data, specifications, plans and drawings
must be submitted in DUPLICATE:
I. EQUIPMENT LOCATION DRAW ING. The drawing or sketch submitted must be to scale (suggested
scale: I inch - 100 feet; accuracy of measurements to the nearest 5 feet will be satisfac-
tory) and must show at least the following:
a. The property involved and outlines and heights of all buildings on it. Identify property
I ines plainly.
b. Location and identification of the tank on the property.
c. Location of the property with respect to streets and all adjacent properties. Identify
adjacent properties. Show location of all buildings outside the property that are within
150 feet of the equipment involved in the application. Identify all such buildings (as
residence, apartment house, machine shop, warehous.es, etc.), specifying height of each
building (number of stories). Indicate direction (north) on the drawing.
Applicants, who have current master plot plans on file with the Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict may submit a location drawing showing only the area in the immediate neighborhood of
the proposed tank location. Such a drawing must be oriented with the master plot plan.
NOTE: Structural design calculations and details are not required. When standard com-
nercial equipment is to be installed, the manufacturer's catalog describing the equip-
ment may be submitted in lieu of the parts of Item I that it covers. All information
required above that the catalog does not contain must be submitted by the applicant.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED.
After authority to construct or to install is granted for any equipment, deviations from the
approved plans are not permissible without first securing additional approval for the changes
from the Air Pollution Control Officer-
Further information or clarification concerning permits can be obtained by writing or calling
the Permit Application Receiving Unit, MAdison 9-4711,
50D89 R2-64-I2 (Continued on reverse side) Form 400-C-9
gure 3.4. Special instructions sheet for completing storage tank application form
-------
3.22
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
434 South San Pedro Street, Los Angeles, Calif. 90013. MAdison 9-4711
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
GENERAL
A $40.00 filing fee must accompany each application except in the case of a transfer
of ownership where no alteration, addition or change of location has occurred. Forthis
exception the application filing fee will be $10.00. Checks or money orders should be
made payable to the Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles. The filing
fee will be applied to the final fee for permit to operate. A separate application is
required for each unit of basic equipment (equipment the use of which may cause the
issuance of air contaminants). Such a unit may consist of one individual item, or a
group of two or more items. A separate application is also required for each air pollu-
tion control system (equipment which eliminates or reduces the emission of al rcontami-
nants ).
With each application for authority to construct and permit to operate, the following
data, specifications, plans and drawings must be submitted In DUPLICATE:
I. EQUIPMENT LOCATION DRAWING. The drawing or sketch submitted must be to scale (suggested
scale: I inch = 100 feet; accuracy of measurements to the nearest 5 feet will be satis-
factory) and must show at least the following:
a. The property involved and outlines and heights of all buildings on it. Identify
property lines plainly.
b. Location and identification of the proposed equipment on the property.
c. Location of the property with respect to streets and all adjacent properties.
Identify adjacent properties. Show location of alI buildings outside the property
that are within 150 feet of the equipment involved in the application. Identify
all such buildings (as residence, apartment house, machine shop, warehouse,
etc.), specifying height of each building (number of stories). Indicate direction
(north) on the drawing.
2. DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT. State make, model, size and type for either the entire
unit or for its major parts.
3. DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS.The application must be accompanied by a written description
of each process to be carried out in the equipment and of the function of the equip-
ment itself In the process. The*descriptions must be complete and in detail con-
cerning all operations. Particular attention must be given to explaining all stages
in the process where the discharge of any materials might contribute in any way to
air pollution. All obtainable data must be supplied concerning the nature, volumes,
particle sizes, weights and concent rations of alI types of air contaminants that may
be discharged at each stage in the process. Similarly, control procedures must be
described in sufficient detail to show the extent of control of air contaminants
anticipated in the design, specifying the expected efficiency of the control devices.
4. OPERATING SCHEDULE. Specify the hours per day and days..per week the equipment is to
bs ops r?vt6d.
5, PROCESS WEIGHT Detail type and total weight of each material charged into the
equipment^or the process on the basis of pounds per hour or per other specified
6. FUELS AND BURNERS USED. Indicate for fuel gas-type and.xab-U^et per hour- for'
fuel oil-grade and gallons per hour (specify temperature to which olf is Dreheated°-
for sol.d fuels-type and pounds per hour; indicate for burners-make, model stze
type, numberof burners, and capacity range of each burner (from minimum to maximum)'
7. FLOW DIAGRAM. For continuous processes, show the flow of materials either on a
separate flow diagram or on the drawings accompanying the application.
50019 R5-64-I2 (Continued on reverse side) Form 400_c
Figure 3.5. General instructions for completing application forms'
(sheet 1 of 2)
-------
3.23
8. DRAWINGS OF EQUIPMENT. (See NOTE below.) Supply an assembly drawing, dimensioned
and to scale, in plan, elevation and as many sections as are reeded to show clearly
the design and operation of the equipment and the means by which air contaminants
are controlled. The following must be shown:
a. Size and shape of the equipment. Show exterior and Interior dimensions and
features.
b. Locations, sizes and shape details of all features which may affect the pro-
duction, collection, conveying or control of air contaminants of any kind; lo-
cation, size and shape! detal I s concerning all materials handling equipment.
c. All data and calculations used in selecting or designing the equipment.
d. Horsepower rating of all electric motors driving the equipment.
NOTE: Structural design Calculations and details are not required. When standard
commercial equipment is to be installed, the manufacturer's catalog describing the
equipment may be submitted in lieu of the parts of Item 8 that it covers. All in-
formation required above Itha-t the-catalog does not contain must be submitted by the
applicant. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED.
After authority to construct or to Install Is granted for any equipment, deviations from the
approved plans are not permissi ble without first securing additional approval for the changes
from the Air Pollution Control Officer.
Further information or clarification concerning permits can be obtained by writing or'cat I Ing
the Permit Application Receiving Unit, MAdison 9-4711,
16-50019 Form 4°°-C
Figure 3.5. General instructions for completing application forms
(reverse side) (sheet 2 of 2)
-------
3.24
To transmit data from an application form to an information system, the
keypunching function must often be preceded by the transcribing of all
the data to coding sheets. Savings in both cost and time can be realized
if the transcribing task can be significantly reduced or eliminated with-
out an increase in the incidence of errors. Figure 3.6 presents an equip-
ment registration form that was created in an effort to facilitate this
transcribing task. The very small numbers placed below the boxes and lines
indicate the columns in which these data are to be punched, and in some
cases, the values as well. For example, item 11 requests stack height
information. It is to be punched in column 29 as follows:
STACK HEIGHT VALUE TO BE PUNCHED
less than 30 feet 1
31 - 50 feet 2
51 - 100 feet 3
101 - 150 feet 4
151 - 200 feet 5
201 - 250 feet 6
Over 250 feet 7
Had it been desired, three columns could have been set aside for stack
height and the exact height entered. This type 6f request was made
in item 18, fuel consumption.
To design a form that is compatible with data processing, those items
that are to be entered into the information system must be allocated
sufficient column space for each response. To facilitate keypunching
the column assignments on the application should be numbered consecutively
down the page as in Figure 3.6.
-------
3.25
MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
2305 N. CHARLES ST.
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21218
_ APPLICATION FOR REGISTRAT
lAJ (INITIAL 1
1. OWNER OF INSTALLATI6N
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY STATE
2. APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
ON OF FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT
NFORMAT ION)
DATE OF APPLICATION
TELEPHONE
ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
3. STREET ADDRESS OF FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT CITY
4. INSTALLER OR CONTRACTOR (fF NEW OR REPLACEMENT!
TOWN OR P.O. COUNTY
TELEPHONE
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
5. STARTING DATE [NEW INSTALLATION! COMPLETION DATE OAT
OPE
E EXISTING INSTALL. PLACED IN
RATION
23-24
6. SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED COMPANY OFFICIAL
SINT OR TYPE NAME
7. TYPE OF REGISTRATION
Existing Installation • — i p
(Initial Reg.) •— j Alteration L
New Installation > — i r
(To be constructed) ' — ' Addition "•
25-2 2
Replacement ' — ' Change of Ownership "-
2S*3 2
Other "•
1 SPECIFY 2
9. IDENTICAL INSTALLATIONS AT THIS LOCATION
27-28
10. NAME OF FUEL SUPPLIER
11. STACK HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (IN FEET)
29-1 29-2 29-3
TITLE
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
DATE REC. LOCAL DATER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SENT
DATE BY
REVIEWED
NAME
LOCAL
STATE
EC. STATE
DATE
RETURNED TO LOCAL JURISDICTION
DATE BY
APPLICATION RET'D TO APPLICANT
DATE BY
REGISTRATION NUMBER
(1) (2) (3) 14) (5! (6) (7)
I
Si (31 ( 121
STATE GRID COORDINATES
1
11 12 13 11 15
PREMISE NUMBER
__j_
IS 19 20 21
8. MAJOR ACTIVITY AT THIS LOCATION (CHECK ONE)
— ' Manufacturing ' — ' Hotel or Motel
5-4 26-1
— , Retail or i — i Hospital or
—1 Wholesale Store ' — ' Laboratory
5-5 26-2
J Office (All Types) "— ' Warehouse
5-6 26-3
— 1 i — i Residential or
— ' School or Church ' — ' Apartments
5-7 26-4
Ofkor
SPECIFY
ADDRESS TELEPHONE
101-150 D 151- 200 D 201-250 D Over
2^4 29-S 29-6
12. CHECK ALL FUELS BURNED IN THIS INSTAl l-ATION
Coal Q Oil Q Wood Q Natural Gas Q~] Other Q _
13. IF OIL IS USED CHECK ALL GRADES APPLICABLE
No. IP No. 2 D No. 4 D
30-1 30-2 W-3
NO. s n NO. 6 n
30-4 30-5
SPECIFY
Other 1 1
16 17
2?
a
26-5
D
2G-6
D
26-7
D
26-B
a
250 D
29-7
30-6 SPECIFY
*QC 11 I/S9
Figure 3.6. Application form compatible with data processing
(sheet 1 of 2)
-------
3.26
["•*. TVi OF OIL BURNER
! Pressure or __
j Gun Type LJ
Rotary CupLj Steam Atomizer I I Air Atomizer |—|
31-2 31-3 3'-*
Other n .
31-5
•5, TYPE OF COAL BURNING EQUIPMENT USED
,1ond Fired
D
„..«« . ^ ----- =. „
32*2
Spreoder Stoker
Stoker Fired with
Ash Reinjeetion
Traveling Grate
Chain Grate
Other
*— ' Pulverized Coal
32*3
Cyclone Furnace
a
32-5
5
a
3
D
32-3
16. FLY ASH COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
__ Electrostatic
33
None
Cyclone
Multiple Cyclone
Settling Chamber
or Baffles
Precipitator
Scrubber
_
LJ
17
D
r— l
•— '
36
Other.
Water Spray in Stack U
39
Other Inertia! Separator i—.
(Tubular, Cone, Etc.) U
40
D
DESCRIBE 41
S7A. SMOKE INDICATOR IN STACK
17B. ARE OIL HEATERS USED
Yes
D NoQ
42-1 42-2
Type
SPECIFY
LJ No LJ Temperature .
13. AMOUNT OF FUEL CONSUMED ANNUALLY IN THESE UNITS ONLY.
Coal
.Tons
Gas
Cu. Ft.
Other.
SPECIFY
AMOUNT
ISA. SULFUR CONTENT OF FUEL TO THE NEAREST TENTH OF ONE PERCENT.
<& Oil
&S-60
6V62
I9B. ASH CONTENT OF COAL TO THE NEAREST PERCENT
A'h %
6>M
ZZ. MAXIMUM FIRING RATE (BTU PER HOUR INPUT!
Input
65-68
. BTU/Hr. Cool.
. Lb$./Hr.
Oil
•Gol./Hr. Go*.
.Co. Ft./Hr.
i'.. STACK EMISSIONS FROM THIS INSTALLATION
PARTICULATE LOADING • 6R./CU. FT.
FLUE GAS VOLUME CFM t
POUNDS PER DAY.
INHG
SULFUR
DIOXIDE .
OXIDES OF
LBS./DAY NITROGEN
CARBON
LBS./OAY MONOXIDE
HYDRO-
LBS./DAY CARBONS .
. LBS./DAY
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
Emissions in pounds per day from this installation. (Make a separate card for each boiler).
Card Number Dup. C.C 1-22 from Cord A,
Average - Entire Year
SuUur Dioxide DD D D D
23 24 25 26 27
Partieulate Matter D D D D D
33 34 3S )S 37
Oxides of Nitrogen Q Q D D D
43 44 4S 46 47
Hydrocarbons
Q Q D D D
53 54 55 56 $7
At Maximum Capacity
Dnaan
20 29 30 3I 32
nanaa
38 39 40 41 42
nnnnn
48 49 50 51 S2
nnnnn
SB 59 60 61 62
Figure 3.6. Application form compatible with data processing
(sheet 2 of 2)
-------
3.27
When more than one card is to be prepared from a completed form, the
card and column number to be punched for each item can be easily in-
dicated. For example, columns 29 and 30 of card one may be shown as
1.29-30. Columns 31-39 of card three may be identified as 3.31-39 on
the form.
Each card punched from an application must contain a unique identifier
to distinguish it from all others. This item is usually the permit
number. In addition, one column should be set aside to number the cards
so that they may be kept in the proper order.
VI. FILE STRUCTURE
The collection and maintenance of all information pertaining to a permit
to construct or a certificate to operate is initially contained in a
manual file or dossier. The function of this file is to serve as the
legal repository for all data relevant to the application. It is a
valuable reference for engineers evaluating applications for similar
equipment and for field enforcement officers to check design and operational
details for unauthorized changes.
A. Manual File
The manual file is usually created by the unit responsible for re-
ceiving and logging in applications for permits. The file will
contain the application forms and all drawings, specifications,
associated calculations submitted by the applicant, and a routing
slip. A log sheet should be attached to the file to show date re-
ceived, time required for evaluation, pertinent telephone calls,
correspondence, holding without action time, and the status of the
application.
-------
3.28
During the permit evaluation period, the engineer processing the
application will add his description of the equipment or process
to the file, including calculations, flow diagrams, and recommendations
Additional documents that should become a permanent part of the file
are the final inspection report, supporting field enforcement
officers' reports, complaints and fee payment notices. The file
will continue to be active after a permit to construct has been
granted and until a certificate to operate has been issued or
denied.
If an appeal is made to the variance board, the file remains active
until the board reaches a decision. All judgments and reports re-
sulting from this action should be included in the file.
General rules for filing must include stamping or writing the
application number on all forms, drawings, evaluation sheets,
correspondence, etc. The folders can be top- or side-punched or of the
accordian type. When an individual folder becomes too thick or
bulky, then a second folder should be started. Often drawings which
accompany applications are very large and thus require separate
filing. Care must be taken to cross-reference the filing location
for these drawings.
B. Automated Files
Automated files are those sets of organized data that may be processed
by a computer system. Therefore, when an automated file is being
created, the agency should incorporate in it only that information
that can be manipulated, listed, compared, or calculated. It should
include basically the items enumerated in Figure 3.1, page 3.4 as
well as others that are of particular interest. Literal data such
as reports, are unnecessary in an automated file because such data
are very difficult to query and expensive to prepare and maintain.
-------
3.29
Before each type of component is added to the automated file, the com-
ponent should be thoroughly evaluated. If it can be reasonably assumed
that an information system processing the file will not frequently
access the item, it should be omitted. What must be kept in mind
is that each data element for every permit must be coded, trans-
mitted, verified and validated. This process is needed to confirm
that all information in the file is correct. In addition, updating
must be constantly performed to ensure that all items are current.
If data elements that will not be frequently utilized are included in
the file, the use of such data cannot be cost-effective.
VII. PERMIT PROCESSING INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Eventually a decision must be made concerning the need for and character of the
computer program that will form the basis of the permit processing infor-
mation system. Should the agency use a general-purpose program or should
a special-purpose routine be created for this particular application?
In many ways, this question is analogous to the problem of buying a new
suit of clothes. Should the buyer have one made to order, or is he
better off purchasing one "off the rack"? The former will likely cost
more, fit better, and wear longer than the latter. However, the ready-
made suit will probably be available sooner, and may serve his needs in
the long run just as well as the completely tailored one.
A similar situation exists with computer programs. The special-purpose
system may be better suited and provide more information that its altern-
ative but the question remains, is it worth the extra cost and effort
involved? This largely depends upon the uses to which the agency desires
to apply its system, the urgency with which the system is needed, and the
resources the agency has available. Of the few State and local agencies
that have made this choice, all have opted for building special-purpose
programs.
-------
3.30
A. Special Purpose Software Programs
A special-purpose computer program is one that has been designed and
coded expressly for a particular application or user. It requires
detailed analysis before it can be coded, and extensive checking to
verify its proper operation. The routine may very likely be re-
evaluated at a later date, and subsequently modified or expanded as
the need arises.
If an agency desires to install an automated information system within
a short period of time, a special-purpose program is not practical.
As a reasonable minimum, one year would be needed for design, coding,
complete checkout, and data base generation. The other disadvantages
of such a program are cost and the nature of computer programming. The
coding and check-out of computer programs is often subject to problems,
to slippages in schedules, and consequently, to increased costs. This
is only mentioned to alert the purchaser of programming services to a
potential area of concern.
The primary advantage to an agency of a special-purpose computer routii)
lies in its design to fit the specific needs of the agency's air pollu-
tion control program in general, and of permit licensing systems in pai
ticular. This design facilitates efficient operation of the system as
well as the ability to generate data and reports geared to designated
qualifications and restrictions. Such a system is also appropriate
since it can start as a small or limited program, and subsequently
be modified. As the agency's responsibilities grow or its needs change
the routine can likely be expanded or altered in scope and application
without scrapping the original system.
-------
3.31
B. KAPCIS
1. Introduction
KAPCIS, the Kentucky Air Pollution Control Information System,
is an example of a special-purpose programming system prepared
for a State agency. It was designed to manage large amounts of
administrative data resulting from the activities of the Kentucky
Air Pollution Control Commission (KAPCC) in air contaminant source
registration and permit processing, complaint processing and
enforcement processing. Some technical data are included in the
system; however, it is primarily utilized for administrative
purposes. KAPCIS will be expanded in the future to include air
quality, meteorological, emission inventory, and other technical
data. Since the likelihood of expansion was considered during
the system design phase, no major receding of existing programs
will be required.
2. History
The basic KAPCIS took 2 years to design, program, and checkout.
Its cost amounted to $48,100 for contractor services, in addition
to 1-1/2 years of professional KAPCC manpower, and a great deal
of computer time. An estimate of the grand total for the initial
development of the system would be nearly $100,000. This figure
includes data placement of 24,000 facility names including location
o
information and registration of 20,000 of these facilities.
The KAPCC originally chose to build its own special-purpose system,
rather than to utilize a general-purpose information management
program, because the commission felt that the former could be con-
structed to relate more closely to its regulations and to be more
useful for its air pollution control program.
-------
3.32
3. Data Storage
Both manual and automated information storage techniques are em-
ployed in the system. Three manual files contain: (1) registra-
tion forms; (2) permit application, evaluation, complaint and
enforcement records; and (3) updating and other records of the
automated files. The manual files are utilized to gain immediate
access to the data, for legal purposes, and to store drawings and
photos which cannot be stored by computer.
The computerized records, described in the KAPCIS Summary Report,
are organized into five files as follows:
• Basic Record File—a list of potential sources of
pollution, their location, industrial classification,
and mailing address;
• Registration File—responses to the registration program,
including classification by type and size of operation;
• Permit File—detailed administrative and technical data
from permit applications;
• Complaint File—a record of date, nature, and disposition
of complaints;
• Enforcement File—a record of field investigations,
hearings, and court procedures.
The primary access key to these records is an identification
number. In addition, the organization name and registration
number may be used to distinguish among data base entries.
4. Information Retrieval
KAPCIS operates in the batch processing mode exclusively. Data
may be recovered from the computerized files stored on magnetic
disks either by retrieving Specific records or by using the file
scan technique. With specific record retrieval, information from
-------
3.33
any or all of the five files may be output. The user must indicate
the identification number, registration number, or name of the
organization about which the data are requested. Figure 3.7 shows
an example of a specific record retrieval from the basic file.
The facility identification number 99999900 was used to gain
access to this set of data. The items of information output by
the system include:
• The facility identification number.
• The number of the county in which the facility is located.
• The city number within the county.
• The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code number of
the facility.
• The organization's name and number of additional locations.
• The organization's address and name of a responsible member.
• The registration status of the facility.
• The number of mailings made to the facility as part of the
registration program.
• The permit status of the facility.
• The total number of complaints against this facility.
• The number of enforcement actions taken against this facility.
The file scan feature provides the capability to retrieve infor-
mation selectively from the data base. In his requests, the user
can apply specified criteria in up to four data fields of interest.
The logical operators that may be employed include: greater than,
less than, equal to, between, and not between. The queries take
the following form, for example:
• County number equal to 57
• Incinerator capacity between 200 and 500 Ibs./hr.
-------
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL INFORMATION SYSTEM
RESPONSE TO QUERY 0
USER IDENTIFICATION ... JCM SUBMITTAL DATE ... 10/06/70 TYPE OF QUERY ... SPECIFIC RECORD RETRIEVAL
SOURCE FILE 1 ... BASIC FILE
FACILITY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS 99999900
********** BASIC FILE— QUERY NUMBER 0000 *************
ID. NO. CTY CITY SIC FACILITY NAME ADDRESS REG MAILINGS PERMIT COMPLAINT ENFORCEMENTS
99999900 067 0 8921 SPINDLETOP RESEARCH SPINDLETOP RESEARCH NO 00 NO 00 00
00 ADDITIONAL FACILITIES P 0 BOX 481
LEXINGTON, KY
ATTN JACK MARTIN(APRD)
Figure 3.7. Example of a specific record retrieval
(source: reference 10)
-------
3.35
Only those records that satisfy the stated criteria may be
processed further. The possibilities are the output of an entire
record from one of the automated files, the printing of mailing
labels, or the listing of field data. In the latter case, infor-
mation from up to four fields from selected records may be output
and have simple statistical operations performed on it. These may
include the computations of sums, means, and standard deviations.
A sample file scan retrieval is depicted in Figure 3.8. The out-
put indicates that the selection criteria utilized was that the
value in field 1002 be between 0 and 119, and that the value in
field 3025 be greater than 70,000. The identification numbers
and values of the fields that qualified are printed, followed by
some statistical calculations.
With the hindsight of two years of experience, the KAPCC would still
choose a special-purpose system instead of a general-purpose one.
However, they would include many small report programs rather than
a general file scan program to retrieve data.
C. Information Management Systems
"An information management system is a software tool useful in
13
organizing, processing, and presenting information." It is
capable of being employed in a wide variety of areas without being
modified. According to Sundeen, "...with flexibly designed systems,
at least 80% of the applications encountered in data processing can
14
be implemented without any formal programming being required."
Information management systems may also be referred to as file
management systems or data management systems. They perform the
following essential functions:
• Data definition—the process by which the user identifies and
describes to the system the data elements that will constitute
the components of his data base.
• File creation—the procedure by which the initial version of the
data base is produced in accordance with the data definition.
Storage allocation is controlled by the system.
-------
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL INFORMATION SYSTEM
RESPONSE TO QUERY 0
USER IDENTIFICATION . . . JCM SUBMITTAL DATE . . . 09/25/70 TYPE OF QUERY . . . FILE SCAN
SELECTION CRITERIA . . , RECORDS SELECTED ARE THOSE SATISFYING ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.
THE VALUE IN FIELD 1002 IS BETWEEN 0 119
THE VALUE IN FIELD 3025 IS GREATER THAN 70000
OPERATIONS ... THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS WERE PERFORMED ON THOSE RECORDS WHICH SATISFIED THE SELECTION
CRITERIA.
VALUES FOR FIELD/S 1004, 1009, 3025, 0000 WERE TABULATED/COMPUTED.
IDENTIFICATION NO.
00002400
00003200
2 VALUES WERE LISTED FOR FIELD 1004
2 VALUES WERE COUNTED IN FIELD 1004
2 VALUES WERE COUNTED IN FIELD 1009
THE SUM OF VALUES IN FIELD 1004 IS
2 VALUES WERE LISTED FOR FIELD 3025
2 VALUES WERE COUNTED IN FIELD 3025
THE SUM OF VALUES IN FIELD 3025 IS
THE MEAN OF THE VALUES IN FIELD 3025 IS
PROCESSING OF QUERY IS COMPLETE
FIELD 1004
6551
5041
140456
70228.0000
FIELD 1009
0
0
FIELD 3025
70133
70323
FIELD 0 0
0
0
OJ
CO
Figure 3.8. Example of a file scan retrieval
Csource r reference
-------
3.37
• File maintenance—the updating of the contents of a previously
created data base.
• Interrogation—the process of retrieving desired items from the
data base. This information may be logically qualified according
to designated conditions. The language utilized for inquiry
generally resembles a combination of English and mathematics, and
is easy to learn.
• Report generation—the selection, organization, and presentation
of data in an easy-to-digest, tabular format. The reports are of
two categories; they may be either specified before use or
predefined, stored with the data base, and invoked by an associated
name.
With a number of systems, some or all of these functions may be per-
formed in a conversational (on-line) mode, as well as in the standard
batch (off-line) mode. For the latter, retrieval requests are
transferred to computer cards, magnetic tape, or a similar medium, and
subsequently processed in sequence. When employing the conversational
technique, the user types in his retrieval request directly and must
wait for his response before entering his next query. The turnaround
time in this method is usually from a few seconds to a few minutes,
depending upon the complexity of the interrogation.
The primary disadvantages of information management systems are listed below:
• They are expensive if not utilized frequently.
• They do not operate efficiently for all applications due to their
general purpose design.
• They may not have the capability to perform needed or desired
functions.
• Outputs may not be in presentable, convenient formats.
-------
3.38
The main advantages of these general-purpose systems are as follows:
• No additional programming is necessary for implementation.
• The installation period is short.
• The user need not be a programmer.
• Maintenance costs are low.
• Many different types of data may be accepted with equal
ease.
• The systems may be tried for a.few months at relatively low cost.
This last point should be elaborated upon. An agency with little data
processing experience might do well to invest a small amount of
money in the leasing of a general-purpose system for a short period
of time. The agency will gain familiarity with the capabilities of
such a system, and thus will be better able to specify its own
needs, as well as to determine the necessity of having a special-
purpose system created.
D. Available Systems
Information management systems are currently available as proprietary
routines from both hardware and software companies. The use of such
systems may be purchased outright, or leased for a given period of time
Table 3.1 presents list of several of these programs with the name
of the manufacturer. Potential users are urged to contact these
organizations directly for brochures, pricing information, and demon-
strations of system capabilities.
-------
3.39
Table 3.1. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM MANUFACTURER
ASI-ST Applications Software, Inc.
DMS Xerox Data Systems
3
DS/2 System Development Corporation
EASY-WRITER Honeywell, Inc.
GIS/2 IBM
IMS-8 Univac
2
MARK IV Informatics, Inc.
MARS Control Data Corporation
1-Can only be used on manufacturer's equipment
2-Can only be used on IBM Systems 360 and 370, and RCA equipment
3-Can only be used on IBM Systems 360 and 370
E. Example of the Use of an Information Management System
In this section, the use of the DS/2 information management system is
demonstrated as it might be employed in a permit processing application.
A small 20-entry data base utilizing artificial data was created. It
was packed with component type information illustrated by the permit
system data base of Figure 3.1. The DS/2 system allows data retrieval
in both on-line and batch processing modes. In these exercises, the
conversational mode was utilized.
1. Specific Data Retrieval
Figure 3.9 illustrates the selection of specific items of infor-
mation from the data base for a particular entry. DS/2 indicates
that it is ready to accept a request by printing "NEXT:." The
user responds by asking for the retrieval of the particulate
emissions for permit number 12. DS/2 informs him that 15
columns are needed for the answer and gives him an opportunity
-------
3.40
NEXT:
>PRINT PERMITNO,PART WHERE PERMITNO EQ 12
15 COLUMNS REQUIRED, CONTINUE(Y/N/F/B):
>F
PERMITNO PART
12 15
1 ENTRIES( 5% OF DB) QUALIFIED, REQUEST COMPLETE.
NEXT:
>PRINT PERMITNO,UNIT,LASTSPEC,NEXTSPEC
45 COLUMNS REQUIRED, CONTINUE(Y/N/F/B):
>F
PERMITNO UNIT LASTSPEC NEXTSPEC
16 X ELECTRIC PRECIP 2/26/71 8/26/71
1 ENTRIES( 5% OF DB) QUALIFIED, REQUEST COMPLETE.
NEXT:
Figure 3.9. Specific data retrieval
-------
3.41
to negate the request. The user inputs "F" telling the system
to print the complete answer on the teletype. The system finally
prints the permit number and the associated particulate emissions,
15. Although the units have been omitted, the user is aware that
the answer is 15 Ibs./hr. because he knows that all inputs to the
data base were in Ibs./hr.
If the user wished to eliminate his question to the system, he
could have typed "N" instead of "F." Had he input "B," the re-
sult would have been saved on magnetic tape for delayed output.
A "Y" input is similar to that of "F" except that the former gives
the user the opportunity to terminate the output after 25 lines
have been printed, assuming that much information is available to
fill the request.
In the second example of Figure 3.9, a few pieces of information
concerning permit number 16 have been retrieved. The type of
equipment is an exhaust system—an electric precipitator. This
information was printed out as "X ELECTRIC PRECIP" in order to use
less storage space in the system, and fewer characters on output.
This unit was last inspected on February 26, 1971 and is
scheduled to be checked again on August 26, 1971. Had it been
desired, all information pertaining to permit number 16 could have
been retrieved.
2. Logical Data Retrieval
DS/2 will process data requests which utilize both logical and
Boolean operators. Only that information which qualifies according
to the stated conditions will be retrieved. The following logical
comparison operators are usable:
-------
3.42
EQ equal to
GR greater than
GE greater than or equal to
LS less than
LE less than or equal to
In addition, the Boolean operators AND, OR, and NOT may be applied.
Figure 3.10 presents some examples using these operators. The
first query requests the output of the permit number, the type
of equipment, and contaminant data for each entry located in grid
region 14 as well as for each entry in which particulate emissions
were at least 20 Ibs./hr. Permits 6 and 7 did not have any oxides
of sulphur (SO ) data registered. The equipment units are:
X
ASPHALT CON BATCH....Asphaltic Concrete Batching
X BAGHOUSE.. Exhaust System—filter Cloth Dust Collector
X SCRUBBER Exhaust System—Scrubber
Had the user desired, he could have provided additional storage
space in the system for the equipment unit designators. In this
case the complete unit names, or more descriptive designations,
could have been utilized.
In the second example, a request was made for the retrieval of
the permit number, equipment status, last inspection date, next
inspection date, and particulate level from each permit entry
with equipment status of "conditional" or "pending," and a par-
ticulate emission level less than 50 Ibs./hr. The expression
"COND" was used to conserve storage space in the system.
-------
3.43
NEXT:
>PRINT PERMITNO,UNIT,SOX,PART WHERE GRID EQ 14 AND PART GE 20
39 COLUMNS REQUIRED, CONTINUE(Y/N/F/B):
>F
PERMITNO UNIT SOX PART
3 ASPHALT CON BATCH 150 25
6 X BAGHOUSE 20
7 X SCRUBBER 30
3 ENTRIES( 15% OF DB) QUALIFIED, REQUEST COMPLETE.
NEXT:
>PRINT PERMITNO,STATUS,LASTSPEC,NEXTSPEC,PART WHERE STATUS EQ*
*COND OR STATUS EQ PENDING AND PART LS 50
COLUMNS REQUIRED, CONTINUE(Y/N/F/B):
>F
PERMITNO STATUS LASTSPEC NEXTSPEC PART
2 COND
6 PENDING
9 COND
13 COND
14 CQND
3/02/71
1/16/71
2/05/71
12/12/70
1/02/70
7/02/71
4/16/71
6/05/71
4/12/71
5/02/71
30
20
15
25
10
5 ENTRIES( 25% OF DB) QUALIFIED, REQUEST COMPLETE.
NEXT:
Figure 3.10. Logical data retrievals
-------
3.44
3. Statist! cal D at a. Re t r ieval s
DS/2 provides a number of simple statistical commands for
retrieval of numerical type data and the computation of simple
statistical functions. The primary command is "LIST STAT" or
"LISTSTAT," and the others are subsets of it. The LISTSTAT
command is used to output individual values as well as a statistical
summary. Its use is demonstrated in Figure 3.11.
In this example, the query reads "PR C2, C3, LIST STAT SOX THRU
LOWHC." PR is the short form of the command PRINT. C2 and C3 are
the component number references for the data items PERMITNO and
UNIT, respectively. LIST STAT SOX THRU LOWHC asks for all the
values as well as a statistical summary be output for SOX—oxides
of sulphur, LOWHC—low reactive hydrocarbons, and all data items
falling between these two in the data base definition (see
Figure 3.1). These include CO—carbon monoxide, NOX—oxides of
nitrogen, PART—particulates, and HIGHHC—high reactive hydro-
carbons. All values are in Ibs./hr.
The statistical summary gives a recapitulation of the data for
the six pollutants. The summary commands are as follows:
CNT - the number of elements in each column
SUM - the total of each column
AVE - SUM/CNT
MIN - the smallest value in each column
MAX - the largest value in each column
The statistical summary may be requested without a complete
listing of the data by using the SUMMARY command. In addition,
CNT, SUM, AVE, MIN, and MAX may be employed as individual commands.
The RANGE command gives MIN and MAX together.
-------
3.45
NEXT:
>PR C2,C3*LIST STAT SOX THRU LOWHC
64 COLUMNS REQUIRED* CONTINUECY/N/F/B)
>F
PERMITNO UNI T
1 BOILER OIL
2 CAT CRACKING
3 ASPHALT CON BATCH
4 INCINERATOR APT
5 INCINERATOR MULT
6 X BAGHOUSE
7 X SCRUBBER
8 BOILER OIL
9 FURNACE FERROUS
10 X ELECTRIC PRECIP
11 RENDERING
12 SPRAY DRIER
13 GALVANIZING
14 FURNACE NON-FERR
15 INCINERATOR FUME
16 X ELECTRIC PRECI P
17 BOILER GAS
18 CRUDE OIL PROCESS
19 ASPHALT PRODUCT
20 INCINERATOR MULT
SOX
CO
NOX PART HIGHHC LOWHC
CNT
SUM
AVE
WIN
MAX
16 20
2000 90000
150 80
50
50
200
10
16
100
75
5
15
5
200
15
SOX
11
2597
236
5
2000
CO
13
91590
7045
20
90000
NOX
20
200
400
100
20
200
50
400
50
PART
50
100
10
2
2
10
20
200
10
10
30
25
10
20
30
10
15
30
15
25
10
5
25
500
20
13
666
51
2
200
16
285
17
5
30
15
10
HIGHHC
7
800
1 14
10
500
10
50
10
200
10
1000
100
20
20
100
20
10
150
20
LOWHC
9
1440
160
10
1000
20 ENTRIES<100% OF DE) QUALIFIED* REQUEST COMPLETE.
NEXT:
>LOGOUT
Figure 3.11. Statistical data retrieval
-------
3.46
Any of these statistical commands may have the logical and/or
Boolean operators applied to them. For example, "PR C2, C3,
LISTSTAT SOX THRU LOWHC WHERE NOX GE 50" will yield a result
similar to Figure 3.6 except that only those entries for which
oxides of nitrogen were greater than or equal to 50 would appear.
In this case, the statistical summary and enumeration would only
contain permits 1, 2, 8, 9, and 19.
4. Reports
DS/2 permits the creation of reports for use immediately, or for
employment at a later time. The report format may be stored
with the data base and called into use by name. Whenever
utilized, the report itself may be conditioned by the use
of logical and Boolean operators, as were the requests
above.
Figure 3.12 depicts the generation of a report format, while
Figure 3.13 shows the result of its use. The report requests a
complete listing and statistical summary by grid area of the
pollutants—oxides of sulphur, carbon monoxide, and oxides of
nitrogen. By multiplying each pollutant by 24 (e.g., SOX*24),
the data are changed from Ibs./hr. to Ibs./day. These
computations affect only the results, and not the data base. The
command "SORT Fl, BREAK Fl" asks that the grid regions be pre-
sented in the output in numerical order, and that a statistical
summary be presented each time a new grid area is reached. The
next few lines show a format of how the report will appear; These
lines give the user an opportunity to verify the contents of the
report. When all is ready, the command REPEAT, or RE for short,
is typed in. The standard retort is presented by the system, and
either Y, N, F, or B must be input. When a sorted report is to
be generated, B for batch output must be selected.
-------
3.47
NEXT:
>PR GRID,PERMITNO,LIST STAT SOX*24,LIST STAT CO*24,LIST STAT NOX*24
38 COLUMNS REQUIRED, CONTINUE(Y/N/F/B):
>SORT Fl, BREAK Fl
: GRID PERMITNO SOX*24 C0*24 NOX*24
FT F2 F3 F4 F5
.3. —8-— —7— —7— — 7—
SORT FIELDS Fl A BREAK FIELDS Fl
IDENTIFIER
SOX*24
C0*24
NOX*24
COUNT
*R*
*R*
*R*
SUM
*R*
*R*
*R*
AVERAGE
*R*
*R*
*R*
MINIMUM
*R*
*R*
*R*
MAXIMUM
*R*
*R*
*R*
47 COLUMNS REQUIRED
NEXT:
>RE
47 COLUMNS REQUIRED, CONTINUE(Y/N/F/B):
>B
JOB 01 IN QUEUE POSITION 1
NEXT:
>RE
Figure 3.12. Report generation
-------
3.48
GRID PERMITNO SOX*24
C0*24
NOX*24
14
14
14
CNT
SUM
AVE
MIN
MAX
15
15
15
15
15
CNT
SUM
AVE
MIN
MAX
24
24
24
24
CNT
SUM
AVE
MIN
MAX
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2
19
18
3
4
6
7
17
15
12
11
20
13
16
14
10
9
1
5
8
48000
4800
0
3
52800
17600
0
48000
3600
0
0
0
120
5
3720
744
0
3600
360
120
1800
360
4
2640
660
120
1800
0
0
0
0
2400
384
0
384
2160000
9600
0
3
2169600
723200
0
2160000
1920
0
0
0
1200
5
3120
624
0
1920
4800
2400
9600
1200
4
18000
' 4500
1200
9600
0
0
480
0
4800
480
1200
480
4800
4800
0
3
9600
3200
0
4800
240
0
0
0
480
5
720
144
0
480
240
48
240
240
4
768
192
48
240
0
0
48
0
2400
1200
48
1200
Figure 3.13. Sample report
-------
3.49
GRID PERMITNO
SOX*24
FINAL TOTALS
C0*24
NOX*24
CNT
SUM
AVE
MIN
MAX
8
3168
396
0
2400
8
7440
930
0
4800
8
4896
612
0
2400
CNT
SUM
AVE
MIN
MAX
20
62328
3116
' 0
48000
20
2198160
109908
0
2160000
20
15984
799
0
4800
20 ENTRIES(100( OF DB) QUALIFIED, REQUEST COMPLETE
Figure 3.13. Sample report (continued)
-------
3.50
The output lists the individual emissions by grid. Each time
the grid number changes, a statistical summary is generated for
the grid region. In addition, a summary for all four areas is
provided.
This report can be regenerated after the data base has been
sufficiently updated. In so doing, the agency will be better
able to evaluate the impact of any significant additions to the
emission potential of any grid area.
VIII. COMPUTER PROCESSING
The management of permit data and related air pollution information
by an agency may be accomplished using one, two, or three computer
processing modes. These are batch, time-sharing and remote batch process!:
The one selected for any particular operation must depend upon the nature
of the task, the turnaround time required, and the resources available.
A. Batch Processing
Batch processing is essentially a technique of executing computer
programs one at a time. When one task is completed another is
begun. Originally, the second job was not input into the computer
until the results of the first were printed. Figure 3.14 depicts
such a single-task system. With improvements in technology, many
separate tasks were input on magnetic tape reels and run one at a
time. The results were stored on another reel of tape and printed
later, or communicated to a different computer and printed immediately
without delaying the execution of other tasks. At many installations
today, batch processing is accomplished in a multi-programming mode.
That is, the available resources of the computer system are shared
among several tasks being performed concurrently. This means of
-------
3.51
Input/Output and
Direct Access Storage
Main Computer Memory
Input/Output and
Direct Access Storage
Central Processing Unit (CPU)
Productive
Idle
Magnetic Tape Unit
Disk Storage Unit
Printer
Card Reader/Punch
Figure 3.14. A single-task batch processing system
(source: reference 15)
-------
3.52
operating is much more efficient, since the computer is occupied
with many assignments at all times. The configuration of a multi-
programmed system appears in Figure 3.15.
The batch processing mode is used when the nature of the program to
be run is production-oriented. This occurs when the inputs are
exactly definable before the operation begins, the results are not
needed instantly, and the program requires no interaction while it
is being executed.
If an agency's needs can be satisfied without extremely rapid turn-
around of its informational requests, a batch processing system will
perform quite adequately. In this type of system, turnaround time is
usually from a few hours to a day. The turnaround time may depend
on the anticipated execution time of the job. At many installations,
longer computer runs are held for the "graveyard" (wee hours of the
morning) shift so as not to interfere with shorter programs. The
cost of computer time may also be affected by the time period in
which the computer system is utilized. Prime time (normal working
hours) is the most expensive, while graveyard time is the least
expensive; this situation tends to encourage users to employ the
equipment 24 hours a day.
Probably the greatest disadvantage of a batch processing system is the
effect of mistakes on costs and on receipt of the needed information.
an error is made in the preparation of a computer run, the job must
be completely redone. All costs incurred are wasted; moreover, there!
loss in time that cannot be regained. With the proper precautions
and checking procedures these episodes will be quite infrequent.
However, the complete elimination of errors must be considered unlikely
-------
3.53
Input/Output and
Direct Access Storage
Main Computer Memory
Input/Output and
Direct Access Storage
Central Processing Unit (CPU)
„ Productive
Idle
Magnetic Tape Unit
Disk Storage Unit
Printer
Card Read/Punch
Figure 3.15. A multiple task batch processing system
(source: reference 16)
-------
3.54
B. Time-Sharing
Time-sharing is a technique of providing many individuals with access
to a computer system at the same time. The users can interact with
their operating programs using teletypewriters or display terminals.
They are each, in turn, allotted a very small amount of computer
processing time to input information, execute their programs, and
output results.
Time-sharing systems have the following properties:
• Instantaneous response—the system, or the specific program, will
communicate with the user within seconds of completion of a
query or computation.
• Independent execution—utilization of the system by one individual
will not affect or influence its use by others.
• Simultaneous execution—many users can be viewed as employing the
system at the same time.
• Generality—anyone using the system is not restricted from employini
all of its capabilities and computational power at his own dis-
cretion, according to his own abilities.
• Conversational format—the user can interact with the system, or
with his program while it is executing.
A time-sharing system is usually utilized when quick response to a
query is necessary, when a heuristic approach would be useful for
solving a problem or debugging a program, or when a data base is to
be checked or corrected. Air pollution control agencies could utilize
a time-sharing system for quick response information retrieval,for up-
dating their data bases, and for special applications. For example, a
small program could be created to read in and check data cards made
up for overnight batch runs. If errors are encountered they could
-------
3.55
be corrected on the spot with little loss in time and money. A
standard operating procedure could include updating the data bases
daily on-line and producing informational reports on a batch system
at night.
Conversational systems are useful in that they can be employed after
only a short period of study by engineers and others who have little
experience with computers, because special programming languages,
namely BASIC and subsets of FORTRAN, have been developed especially
to be learned quickly and employed easily. With the aid of these
languages, an individual can have access to a computer virtually when-
ever he requires it.
The main disadvantages of these systems are that they tend to be
expensive, burdensome, and inadaptable for many applications. In
addition to the charge for actual computer time taken up, the user
is assessed a connect charge. That is, he must pay an hourly fee
for the time his terminal operates, regardless of the amount of
system capacity employed.
For individuals not used to typing for long periods, time-sharing
may become a burden during long sessions. This is especially true
if a great deal of interaction is necessary as in updating data bases.
Time-sharing cannot be utilized effectively for many applications
that require significant amounts of computer time or produce large
amounts of output, because the time-sharing user is allotted only a
few minutes of computer processing time each hour, and because the
terminals have very slow output speeds.
-------
3.56
Time-sharing services can be purchased from approximately 150 vendors
across the country. Such services are also available on an in-house
basis; many computer systems are for sale or lease. Vendors usually
sell time by the hour with a minimum monthly charge and additional
access charges. The time-sharing systems usually come with mathematical
statistical, and data management routines available for use.
C. Remote Batch
Remote batch processing can be considered as a combination of time-
sharing and batch processing. Remote batch is similar to batch in
that remote batch can be employed on longer computer runs and there
is no interaction with the program. It is similar to time-sharing
because the user has a terminal on-site and sends data to the computer
over communication lines. Results are transmitted in the opposite
direction; outputs are received on the terminal's line printer or
tape unit. Turnaround time is generally from several minutes to a
few hours, depending on the length of the job. Since the rates of
transmission over the communication lines are slow, the peripheral
equipment in the terminal is of slow to medium speed. In addition
to the printer and tape unit, the terminal includes a card reader and
often a built-in mini-computer that can operate independently. Most
of these terminals cost from $30,000 to $50,000 but they can be leased.
The cost of remote batch equipment is the main reason for its limited
popularity. Besides the terminal cost indicated above, transmission
line and main computer usage costs are incurred. For roughly the cost
of remote batch on a large computer system, a machine approximately
the size of a 360/20 or 360/30, with peripherals, can be purchased
or leased. If these two alternatives are compared, remote computing
will be considered second best in most cases.
-------
3.57
The cost of the terminal must be viewed as a negative factor when
considering remote batch use for permit processing and other air
pollution control functions. However, this method should not be
ruled out until a cost-analysis is performed. Possibly if the cost
of the terminal could be shared with other users, or if the need for
a system with a great deal of computing power is demonstrated, remote
batch will be required.
IX. DATA ENTRY SYSTEMS
Data entry is the procedure of transforming information contained on
source records into a form ready for computer processing. It is not un-
common for total data entry charges to amount to from 30 to 50 percent
of the total electronic data processing (EDP) budget at large installa-
tions. Therefore, this task should be given the proper consideration.
The following functions are important elements of data entry systems:
• Encoding—sets down the data in a machine-readable form.
• Verification—assures that the encoding function has been completed
successfully.
• Validation—checks that the source data is complete and correct.
• Editing—inserts, deletes, and modifies records.
The results of these operations should be data that are machine-compatible
and virtually error-free.
Several factors must be considered when evaluating data entry systems.
Some of the major components to be judged are:
• Speed—the total elapsed time necessary to prepare an error-free file
ready for processing.
• Cost—the price of the equipment and expenses encountered in operating
it.
-------
3.58
• Editing—the ease and speed with which changes to the file can be
accomplished.
• Compatibility—the capacity to use data prepared with one particular
entry system on different computer configurations produced by
numerous manufacturers.
• Human factors—the ability of operators to work accurately, comfortably
and without excessive fatigue.
Transmitting source information to punched cards has been the traditional
and most widely used technique for preparing data for computer processing,
However, in the last few years, technology has derived other methods for
performing this task.
A. Keypunching
Keypunching equipment is utilized for data entry because it is easy
to use, requires a relatively small monetary outlay, and provides a
hard copy of each record which may be used as a working document.
Because they are so widely employed, punched card data inputs are com-
patible with virtually all computer installations.
Figure 3.16 illustrates the operation of a typical keypunch data entry
system. Separate verification machines that resemble keypunches are
used to check for mistakes in the original cards. Essentially, this
process requires a duplication of the keying or typing operation. The
corrected cards are then merged into the card deck. In order to perfoi
the validation and editing operations one or more computer runs are
necessary. The computer may be used to list or check the data. If ed:
ing is needed, it is a simple matter to remove, insert or replace a cai
There are numerous disadvantages to this method:
-------
3.59
Keypunch
Data
Card Deck
Verify
Deck
Bad
Good
Repunch
Cards
Corrected
Cards
Bad
Verify
Cards
Good
Computer
r
Create
Tape
Bad
Edit and
Validate
Tape
Good
Process
Tape
I
Merge with
Deck
Card
Reader
Figure 3.16.
Operation of typical keypunch data entry system
(source: reference 18)
-------
3.60
1. When the number of data cards for any application grows into
the thousands, the costs for storing, handling, correcting, and
reading them become excessive.
2. Unless tricky encoding techniques are employed, only 80 characters
can be punched on each card.
3. If a deck is dropped, the result could be a disastrous situation.
4. Machines may inj ure the cards.
5. The noisiness and mechanical nature of the keypunch do not
create good working conditions.
6. The whole card must be repunched to correct an error.
New machines are being placed on the market that provide for error
correction while the card is originally being punched. These devices
rent for approximately $125 per month, or twice the cost of a standard
keypunch.
B. Key-to-Tape Systems
Key-to-tape machines are devices that utilize keyboards to record infoi
tion and store it on a tape. There are various versions of this unit,
but they all contain a tape transport, keyboard, a display to help
detect errors, and features that permit special formatting of records.
The tape unit can be a cassette or the standard 1/2-inch computer
tape. The keyboard may resemble that of a keypunch or typewriter.
If an error is spotted during input, the operator can backspace to
the incorrect character and change it. Verification is primarily ac-
complished by rekeying the data: inconsistencies are then flagged by
the system.
-------
3.61
Key-to-tape devices may be used individually or in clusters. Stand-
alone units are designed for users processing less than 8,000,000
characters per month and usually replace keypunches on a one-to-one
basis. The typewriter-like units produce hard copy in addition to
tape. If the data are stored on a cassette, they must be transferred to
standard 1/2-inch computer tape. A 300-foot cassette can hold 200,000
characters of data, or 2,500 80-column cards. Record lengths are not
limited to 80 characters.
Because a key-tape unit is electronic rather than mechanical, the
operator can type faster. The elimination of the need to change cards
every 80 characters also speeds up the process. Bauch estimates that
a key-tape system becomes cost-effective after a 15 percent increase
in production over keypunching is maintained.
Figure 3.17 shows the operation of a stand alone key-to-tape system.
Validation and editing are similar to the keypunch. The pooling de-
vice must be used to merge tapes or to transfer data from a cassette
to computer tape, if necessary. The more advanced key-to-tape units
have progressed into complete data preparation systems. They perform
the validation and editing tasks instead of the computer on which
the job will be run. This type of data entry system has its own
mini-computer that contains the appropriate editing and validation
programs. A "clean" tape is then available for processing without
the need of using time on the main computer. However, these units
are much more expensive than key-to-tape devices without a mini-
computer. Their operation is depicted in Figure 3.18.
Clustered key-to-tape units consist of several keyboard stations, a
control unit to monitor them, and one or two tape units. These systems
can contain from eight to 128 input stations, and are primarily used
when large amounts of the same type of data must be accumulated for
processing.
-------
u>
Figure 3.17,
Operation of typical key-to-tape data entry system
(source: reference 20)
-------
Source
Data
Key-to-Tape
Mini
Errors
Computer
Edit and
Validate
Tape
Verify
Tape
Computer
Process
Tape
Edited and
Validated Tape
|
I i
Figure 3.18. Operation of a complete key-to-tape data preparation
and entry system (source: reference 21)
-------
3.64
C. Key-to-Disk
Key-to-disk data entry systems are similar to the key-to-tape con-
figurations utilizing mini-computers except that with the former
the computer processes all input data and controls its verification
as well as its validation and editing. In general, key-disk systems
are also more powerful and slightly more expensive than key-tape
units. They cost roughly three times the monthly rental of a key-
punch per terminal.
The verification process is handled by either rekeying the data, by
checking it visually on a display unit, or by monitoring several
console indicators. In addition, the backspacing feature at each
terminal station permits corrections to be made quickly at input time.
The electronic nature of the keying terminals encourages their fast
and quiet operation. As with the key-tape system, records are not
limited to 80 characters.
Key-disk systems are available with from one to 64 input stations. ^nci
the information has been keyed into the system, it is stored on a disk
storage unit until verified. As part of the input process, the data
are also formatted, edited, and validated. Finally, all information
is transferred to standard computer tape ready for processing. This
procedure is illustrated in Figure 3.19.
D. Optical Character Recognition Systems
Optical character recognition (OCR) data entry systems are best
suited to those applications which have a very high volume of data
preparation and a limited number of different documents to be encoded.
This is because systems that can handle a large variety of inputs, as
far as format and type-face fonts are concerned, tend to be extremely
expensive.
-------
_ _Miiii_Cqmp_uter
Source
Data
Keyboard
Input
Computer
Processor
Disk
Storage
Unit
Verify,
Edit and
Validate Data
I
r
Computer
"1
Process
Tape
Edited and
Validated
Tape
I 1
Figure 3.19. Operation of a complete key-to-disk data preparation and entry system
-------
3.66
An installation should probably not use an OCR system unless its
volume keeps at least five keypunch machines constantly occupied. The
cost of the system is somewhat offset by lower labor costs and fewer
errors. Typing data for character reader input is faster than key-
punching and is likely to produce fewer errors. Checking typed pages
and correcting them is also quicker than checking keypunch cards.
These factors, as well as the fact that the pay for typists is generallj
less than that for keypunch operators, produce lower labor costs.
OCR data entry systems come in both on-line and off-line varieties.
On-line systems are usually less expensive, but the user must employ
his own computer to support their operation. Off-line systems include
their own computers. Figure 3.20 briefly illustrates how a typical
OCR system operates. Inputs may be from standard or specially typed
records. When the documents are read successfully, they are trans-
mitted to a computer-compatible medium such as magnetic tape. If
they are not read because of an unrecognizable character, a document
in poor condition, or some other reason, the data sheet is sent to
a reject pocket. At this point it may be retyped and entered again,
or input by an auxiliary method.
X. MICROFILM
Microfilm may be utilized by air pollution control agencies to store
large amounts of information in a minimum of space. Microfilm is durable
and easy to handle, and data on microfilm can be stored and retrieved
quickly. The agency can use the microfilm either for backup to the
original documents,, or for daily operations with the originals as the
backup.
Microfilm is maintained in any of three different forms: roll films,
strips, or cards. The roll film is usually 16mm or 35mm and contains 2,000
or more frames. The strips are similar to the rolls but only approximately
-------
OCR Processor
Source
Documents
Rejected Documents
may be retyped (or
entered by some
other means).
OCR reader carries the
source documents past
a scanning unit which
reads the characters.
If the data is recog-
nized by the reader's
computer, the code is
then transmitted to
the recording medium.
If the data is not
recognized, the docu-
ment can be rescanned,
rejected, or manually
corrected by the
operator.
Computer
Recognized
Documents
Data recorded
on magnetic
tape, disk, or
paper tape
Data
Processed
Figure 3.20. Operation of an OCR data entry system (source: reference 22)
-------
3.68
15 frames long. "Microfiche" is the name generally applied to the cards.
They are sheets of microfilm approximately 4 by 6 inches, with the
frames of data arranged in rows and columns. A microfiche card holds
approximately 200 frames.
A frame of microfilm can store the information existing on an average
sized sheet of paper. This may include both alphanumeric and graphic
data. Therefore, microfiche can be used for permit applications, reports,
equipment diagrams and plant drawings.
Besides recording already-existing hard copy, microfilm may be used to
store information generated directly by computers. This may be accomplish^
with a device known as a COM—Computer Output Microfilm. A COM unit
accepts standard digital output from a computer system, transforms it
into analog signals, then into recognizable characters and symbols, and
finally records this data on the film at speeds of 25,000 to 500,000
characters per second.
COM systems are available that record only alphanumeric or both alpha-
numeric and graphic information. The former may serve as a direct replace-
ment for a line printer, while the latter is more useful for engineering
applications.
These systems can operate either on-line or off-line. In the on-line
mode, the COM attaches directly to the computer and performs as any
other peripheral equipment unit. As an off-line device, the COM reads
in the data stored on magnetic tape by the computer without using
valuable processing time,
A potential user may experiment with computer output microfilm at a COM
service bureau. For a relatively small investment he can determine if this
type of system meets his needs. In general, in-house COM systems are not
9-3
economical unless monthly output exceeds 200,000 pages per month.
-------
3.69
COST-EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION
Determining the most cost-effective computer system for a particular
application can be a difficult task. In most cases, potential vendors
will submit proposals to the user based upon the latter's requirements.
Often the user must not only choose among the equipment of many manu-
facturers, but he must also consider different configurations and options
available from each offerer.
The following procedure is designed to encourage an orderly evaluation of
competing computer system bids. It can be employed to select a system
of any size or complexity.
1. Prepare a detailed list of system capabilities including
hardware, software, expandability,general support, and
vendor experience. For every item in each of these categories,
designate appropriate features attributable to them. A re-
sult of this process is illustrated in Figure 3.21.
2. Select those items from the list that are considered mandatory
and desirable for the system and assign them percentages
proportional to their importance. Repeat this procedure for
the features assigned to each item.
3. Evaluate each selected item and feature. The evaluation
should be accomplished independently by individuals who
are knowledgeable in the area. It should be based upon information
in the vendor's proposal, in addition to supporting documentation,
technical presentations and discussions, and personal visits
to installations using similar systems. The result of these
investigations is an allocation of points from zero to 100
for each feature. One hundred represents a characteristic
that fits all user requirements.
-------
3.70
!. HARDWARE
Central Processor
D Instruction set and special features (flexibility and
power of the instruction set, availability and flexibility of
the decimal instruction set, ease of bit manipulation);
D Addressing (amount of directly addressable sore,,
virtual memory, indirect addressing);
D Double-precision arithmetic functions;
D Availability of storage-to-storage, storage-to-register
and register-to-register instructions;
P. Fetch time and cycle time;
D Size (words in memory, word size);
D Input/output (channel speed, spooling, number of
channels, symbionts such as HASP, channel overlap);
D Operator dependence (requirements for operator
intervention, set-up time); :
D Registers (general registers, index registers, floating
point registers, .several complete sets of rejiitsrs).
Peripherals
P Direct-access storage (transfer rate, speed of access,
maximum storage size, ease of changing storage elements);
P Mass storage (transfer rate, speed of access, maximum
storage size);
P Magnetic tape (speed, density, number of units,
number of tracks, operator dependence);
D Paper tape (speed, ease of loading, operator
dependence, number of tape levels, tape width);
P Card punch (speed, number of stackers, operator
dependence);
D Card reader (speed, ease of operation, operator
dependence);
P Printer (speed, character set, ease of loading paper,
fine adjustments, operator dependence, quality of print,
ease of changing character set);
n Communications equipment (speed, number of possible
terminals, error rate, error-detection techniques,
error-correction techniques);
D Video terminal (speed, buffer size, rertiora Distance
without communications drivers, character sat, resolution,
number of terminals, ease of operation, quality of the
video display, brightness, color, persistence);
n Opt'cal character reader (speed, ease of operation.
operator dependence);
Q Magnetic character reader (speed, operator
dependence, ease of operation);
O Incremental plotter (on-line speed, off-line speed to
generate plotter tape, throughput speed, ease of
operation, operator dependence).
Non-Standard Interfaces
O Priority interrupts (hardware servicing, software
servicing, speed of service, availability of priority levels);
Q Parallel input (number of parallel input terminals,
builWn multiplexing, speed of service);
D Parallel output (number of terminals, multiplexing
speed of service);
D Control pulses (availability, decode requirements);
D Clocks (availability, real-time, access by user).
II, SOFTWARE
Systems
CJ Operating system (core requirements, ease of use,
accessibility and ease of modification, diagnostics, real-time
monitor, batch monitor, timesharing monitor1, input/output
support, data protection in event of power failure, allowinj
timeshare users to share programs in core, allowance
for altering nuclei, auxiliary storage requirements for
operating system, size of partition during multipro-
gramming, data-management facilities);
p General support programming (job control language,
procedure library, function library, utility programs,
assembler, Fortran compiler, Cobol compiler, Algol
compiler, various other compilers, linkage editor),
Application languages
Q Assembly language (execution times, ease of
programming, ease of debugging);
D Fortran (level, special features, diagnostics);
P Cobol (level, special features, diagnostics);
p Other user-level languages (report generation, sort/
merge, Basic, linear programming, simulation, Algol, etc);
P Real-time (language, interrupt servicing);
D Timesharing (software servicing);
P Communications (software servicing);
P Compatibility (compatibility with existing system,
reprogramming requirements, re-training requirements).
\
III. EXPANDABILITY
P Core (availability, addressability, size, ease of
modification);
P Mass storage (maximum size, speed, ease of addition,
access time);
P Software (ease of modification of software to support
hardware expansions);
P CPU,
IV, GENERAL SUPPORT
P Periodic maintenance (frequency, time required);
P Emergency service (hours available,, location of service
center, availability of service personnel, response time to
service request);
P Documentation (clarity, how extensive, availability
of manuals);
P Initial training (where given, how extensive, limit on
personnel); ,
P Future training (where given, how extensive);
P Availability of local back-up computer (at least for
batch work);
P Availability of systems assistance;
P Availability and vendor support of common users groups;
P Responsiveness of vendor to technical questions
concerning the evaluation (both the timeliness and accuracy
of the response should be considered here and this
should be a fairly high percentage weighted item in the
evaluation).
V. EXPERIENCE OF THE VENDOR
P Real-time data acquisition;
P Remote batch;
P Telecommunications;
Q Multiprocessing;
Q Timesharing;
P Local batch;
P Multiprogramming; <
P Simulation.. . >v •• "' \
Figure 3.21. System capabilities check-off list
(source: reference 24)
-------
3.71
4. Determine the total point score for each proposal by
multiplying the allocations by their percentages, and dividing
the result by the cost. This yields a value per dollar figure.
5- If possible, have a test run conducted for the highest scoring
system. If this test proves successful, the system should be
selected for purchase or lease.
To demonstrate the use of this procedure, consider the evaluation of a
computer system with only two items, a card reader and a line printer.
A weight of 30 percent will be given to the reader, and 70 percent to
the printer. Their features may be weighted as follows:
Card Reader
Speed 70%
Ease of operation 20%
Operator dependence 10%
Line Printer
Speed 60%
Character set 5%
Ease of loading paper 10%
Fine adjustments 5%
Operator dependence 5%
Quality of print 10%
Ease of changing character set 5%
Assume that three vendors bid, and that their point awards and total
costs are:
-------
3.72
Reader Printer Cost
Vendor A 55 50 $100,000
Vendor B 40 65 $ 80,000
Vendor C 60 75 $150,000
Finally, their value per dollar could easily be calculated:
Vendor A-(.3 x 55 + .7 x 50) — 100,000 = 51.5 pts. per $100,000
Vendor B-(.3 x 40 + .7 x 65) - 80,000 = 71.9 pts. per $100,000
Vendor C-(.3 x 60 + .7 x 75) - 150,000 = 47.0 pts. per $100,000
On this basis, vendor B would be highest, vendor A second, and vendor
C last.
-------
3.73
REFERENCES
1. Lunche, R.G., E.E. Lemke, R.L. Weimer, J. Dorsey, and J.A. Verssen (ed.).
Administration of the Permit System, Fourth Edition. Air Pollution Control
District, County of Los Angeles, California. January, 1968, p. 12.
2. Ibid., p. 12-13.
3. Loquercio, P. and W.J. Stanley. Air Pollution Manual of Coding. USDHEW,
PHS, The National Center for Air Pollution Control. 1968.
A. Fair, D.H., J.B. Clements, and G.B. Morgan. SAROAD Parameter Coding
Manual. EPA Office of Air Programs. July 1971.
5. Croker, E.G. and C.F. Henderson. Analyses and Classification of Odors.
American Perfumer and Essent Oil, Rev. 22:325. 1927.
6. McCord, C.P. and W.N. Witheridge. Odors, Physiology and Control.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1949.
7. Partee, F., Director of the Kentucky Air Pollution Control Commission.
Telephone conversation, December 28, 1971.
8. Gatewood, W.B., Senior Sanitary Engineer, KAPCC. Letter of March 23, 1972.
9. Martin, J.C. Kentucky Air Pollution Control Information System Summary
Report. Kentucky Air Pollution Control Commission. October 1979, p. 6.
10. Martin, J.C. Kentucky Air Pollution Control Information System Technical
Report, Volume Two: System Operating Procedures. October 1970, p. 98.
11. Ibid., p. 103.
12. Gatewood, op. cit.
13. Head, R.V. Management Information Systems: A Critical Appraisal.
Datamation. May 1967, p. 22-27.
14. Sundeen, D.H. General Purpose Software. Datamation. January 1968, p. 24.
15. IBM System/360 Operation System, Third Edition. October 1969, Document
Number C28-6534-2, p. 55.
16. Ibid., p. 56.
-------
3.74
17. Bauch, J.H. Cut Into Costs with Key-to-Tape Devices. Computer Decisions.
May 1971, p. 36.
18. Ibid., p. 38.
19. Ibid., p. 37.
20. Ibid., p. 38.
21. Ibid., p. 38.
22. Reagan, F.H. Should OCR Be Your Data Input Medium? Computer Decisions.
June 1971, p. 20.
23. Totaro, J.B. Microfilming Cuts Computer Data Down to Size. Computer
Decisions. March 1971, p. 22.
24. Brocato, L.J. Getting the Best Computer System for Your Money. Computer
Decisions. September 1971, p. 16.
25. Martin, J.C. Kentucky Air Pollution Control Information System Technical
Report, Volume One: System Description. October 1970.
26. Ellis, E.E., H.D. Mitchell, andW.B. Brogen. Florida Department of Air
and Water Pollution Control Data Management Plan for FY 71-76. March 1971.
27. DS/2 Users Manual. System Development Corporation. February 1971.
28. Rosenberg, A.M. The Brave New World of Time-Sharing Operating Systems.
Datamation. August 1969, p. 42-47.
29. Trimble, G.R. and A.J. Penta. Evaluation of Keyboard Data Entry Systems.
Datamation. June 1970, p. 93-99.
30. Harder, B.M. Key-Disk Systems Speed Mainframe Processing Off-Line.
Computer Decisions. May 1971, p. 42-43.
31. Bird, M.G. Indexing is the Key to Retrieving COM-Stored Data. Computer
Decisions. May 1971, p. 30-33.
32. Yerkes, C.P. Microfilm - A New Dimension for Computers. Datamation.
December 1969, p. 94-97.
-------
4 1
CHAPTER 4
APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL PROHIBITION TO PERMIT PROCESSING
INTRODUCTION
The measures of acceptance of emissions from processes and equipment are
the specific rules and regulations which restrict the limits of emission
of air contaminants, or establish equipment standards, design standards
and operational parameters which assure that the prescribed emission
standards are met. The engineer processing applications for permits to
construct and certificates to operate must use these rules as guidelines
to objectively evaluate the air pollution potential from equipment.
The Clean Air Act, as amended, provides for the establishment of ambient
air quality standards for sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide
photochemical oxidant, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. To achieve
and maintain these standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has required each State to prepare an implementation plan which includes
emission control strategies for the reduction of air contaminants mentioned
above. The plan, as described in Sections 420.11 and 420.18 of the Federal
Register, Vol. 36, No. 158, must contain legally enforceable procedures
and regulations by which the states can determine if the construction or
modification of stationary sources of air pollution will interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of the national standards.
Many of these legal authorizations include, in addition to standards,
statutes for assessing and evaluating applications for permits to construct
and certificates to operate equipment and/or processes capable of emitting
or controlling the emission of air contaminants. In this case, the agency's
function is to prevent the installation of equipment that would violate any
rules or regulations or would prevent the attainment or maintenance of
applicable air quality standards.
-------
4.2
These regulations are generally divided into nuisance avoidance, emission
standards and zoning codes.
II. NUISANCE
Air pollution control law originated in the concept of public nuisance.
It was later found necessary to provide ordinances for the abatement of
specific contaminants as in the early smoke regulations of Chicago in
2
1881 and, shortly after, in Cincinnati and St. Louis.
Nuisance ordinances are used to prevent the discharge of air contaminants
where and when they will produce injury, annoyance or discomfort to
persons, or affect property or business. The categories of air contaminan
most likely to cause a nuisance are those which produce odors, material
deposits or produce other detrimental effects.
A. Odors
Many industrial processes and community activities such as incineratio
reduction of animal matter, petroleum refining and chemical processing
may produce objectionable odors. Enforceable regulations for the
reduction of odors are difficult to characterize since the threshold
of detection is generally arrived at by consensus. However, a scale
for measuring odors—The Odor Unit—has been established and is used
to estimate odor concentrations by use of diffusion equations. An
odor unit is defined as "the quantity of any odor or mixture of odors
that, when dispersed in one cubic foot of odor-free air, produces a
2
median threshold odor detection response." The City of St. Louis,
using this approach, has addressed a section of its Air Pollution
Control Ordinance to "Control of Odors in Ambient Air." The engineei
considering an application for permit to construct must then assess
the possibility of the emission of odorous compounds from the use
of the equipment as part of his evaluation for recommending issuance
of a permit.
-------
4.3
B. Material Deposits
Nuisances resulting from particulates are categorized as solid de-
posits, stains and soiling. Most industrial operations, power plants
and solid waste disposal processes can emit liquid or solid particu-
lates capable of creating this class of nuisance.
Regulations designed to reduce or control these emissions are
directed at:
• Fuel burning equipment;
• Fugitive dust 5
• Particulate matter; and
• Smoke and other visible emissions.
While many regulations are not primarily intended as a protection
against nuisances, they may form the basis for regulating processes
which may be prone to this type of ordinance violation.
Volume 36, No. 158 of the Federal Register suggests the following type
of regulations for fugitive dust:
"2.2 Fugitive dust. Reasonable precautions can be taken to
prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Some of these
reasonable precautions include the following:
(a) Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for control of
dust in the demolition of existing buildings or structures, con-
struction operations, the grading of roads or the clearing of land;
(b) Application of asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemicals
on dirt roads, materials stockpiles, and other surfaces which can
give rise to airborne dusts;
(c) Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters
to enclose and vent the handling of dusty materials. Adequate
containment methods can be employed during sandblasting or other
similar operations;
-------
4.4
(d) Covering, at all times when in motion, open bodied trucks,
transporting materials likely to give rise to airborne dusts;
(e) Conduct of agricultural practices such as tilling of land,
application of fertilizers, etc., in such manner as to prevent
dust from becoming airborne;
(f), The paving of roadways and their maintenance in a clean
condition;
(g) The prompt removal of earth or other material from paved
streets onto which earth or other material has been transported
by trucking or earth moving equipment, erosion by water, or other
means."
III. EMISSION LIMITATIONS
Regulations which specifically limit emissions of pollutants into the
atmosphere are the heart of air pollution programs. The nature and
extent of emission control regulations are determined by the desired
air quality and the types and sizes of emission sources in the area.
The preparation and application of emission regulations requires extensivi
technical knowledge about source operations and conditions. This is
especially critical in evaluating applications for permits to construct
since inadequate understanding of concepts and applications can result
in the installation of equipment or processes that may not meet the pollu
emission standards.
The type of standard and the emission limit adopted are based on control
strategies and agency policies. These dictate whether the standards are
to be performance oriented, industry oriented, equipment and fuel oriental
or some combination of these. Examples of standards attainable by curren
technology are shown it Table 4.1.
-------
4.5
Table 4.1 Emission limits attainable by available technology (sheet
1 of 3) (source: reference 6)
Type of Emissions
Visible emissions
Particulate matter
Sulfur oxides
Source
Industrial stacks
Gasoline powered
motor vehicles
Diesel powered
motor vehicles
Incinerators
Fuel burning equip-
ment (solid fuel)
Process industries
Fuel combustion
(Solid fuel)
(Liquid fuel)
Sulfuric acid
plants
Sulfur recovery
plants
Limits Attainable
Less than No. 1 Ringelmann or 20
percent opacity except for periods
up to 3 minutes in any 60 minute
period.
No visible emissions except for
periods up to 5 seconds.
No. 1 Ringelmann or 20 percent
opacity except for periods up to
5 seconds.
0.1 pounds per 100 pounds of
refuse charged.
0.1 pounds per million Btu.
Emission rate, E_, in pounds per
hour, given in terms of process.
Weight rate P, in pounds per
hour, is
E= 3.59P0'62
if P is 60,000 or less;
E = 17.31 P°'16
if P is more ,than 60,000.
1.2 pounds S02 per million Btu.
0.8 pounds S02 Per miH-ion Btu-
6.5 pounds per ton of 100 percent
acid produced.
0.01 pounds S02 per pound of
sulfur processed.
-------
4.6
Table 4.1 Emission limits attainable by available technology (sheet 2 of 3)
Type of Emissions
Sulfur oxides
(continued)
Source
Non-ferrous smelters
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Limits Attainable
Y=0.2X
Y=0.564 X0-85
Y=0.98 X0'77
Sulfite pulp mills
(certain sources)
Refinery process
gas streams
where X. is total sulfur fed to
the smelter and Y_ is sulfur
dioxide emissions, both in
pound per hour.
9 pounds per air-dried ton of
pulp produced (with new recover
systems)
20 pounds per air-dried ton (wi
existing recovery systems).
Equivalent to 10 grains of hydn
sulfide per 100 standard cubic
feet of gas .
Total reduced
sulfur
Oxides of nitrogen
Kraft pulp mills
(recovery furnace)
Fuel-burning
equipment
(gas-fired)
Fuel-burning
equipment
(oil-fired)
Nitric acid
manufacture
0.1 pounds TRS per air-dried to:
of unbleached pulp (new recover
furnace) .
0.5 pounds TRS per air-dried to
of unbleached pulp (existing
recovery furnace) .
0.2 pounds (calculated as NC^)
per million Btu.
0.3 pounds (calculated as NCL)
per million Btu.
5.5 pounds (calculated as
per ton of 100 percent acid
produced.
-------
4.7
Table 4.1 Emission limits attainable by availab-le technology (sheet 3 of 3)
Type of Emissions Source Limits Attainable
Organic Solvents Paint Application 0.45 pounds per hour or 1.25
Equipment pounds per day
Architectural 70 percent reduction by use of
Coatings coating with 20 percent or less
by volume organic solvent
content
-------
4.8
A. Emission Standards
Emission standards prohibit emission rates in excess of specified
quantities and include: (a) stack concentration standards tested
on the basis of weight or volume of emitted pollutant per unit
weight or volume of the carrier gas; (b) process weight standards
defined as the allowable emission rate of pollutants for a given
weight of material processed; (c) visible emissions evaluated on the
basis of visual observation; e.g., Ringelmann or opacity standards;
and (d) plant boundary or downwind concentration limits.
A general rule may be applied to processes where particulates are
emitted. Allowable emissions based on process weight are depicted
in Table 4.2. This type of a standard has been established as the
principal regulation for particulate control by many agencies with
satisfactory results.
B. Equipment Standards
These are a class of regulations which specify permissible features,
specifications or standards for the design of equipment or the prescr:
use of certain control operations. Such standards apply, for example
to multiple-chamber incinerators, fuel burning equipment, fume burner
design for residence time and temperature and for floating roof tanks
and vapor recovery systems for petroleum product storage and transfer
Regulations specifying minimum stack height may also fall under this
category.
The use of equipment standards as a basis for issuing certificates to
operate presents certain hazards since equipment standards by themsel
do not assure that equipment, in practice, will meet emission limit
standards. The standard design acceptance should include necessary
operational details such as process weight, materials to be burned at
-------
4.9
Table 4.2 Process weight table (Source: Reference 7)
Process Emission
weight rate . rate
(Ibs./hr.) (Ibs./hr.)
50 0.03
100 0.55
500 1.53
1,000 2.25
5,000 6.34
10,000 9.73
20,000 14.99
60,000 29.60
80,000 31.19
120,000 33.28
160,000 34.85
200,000 36.11
400,000 40.35
1,000,000 46.72
-------
4.10
hours of operation. However, standards offer an opportunity to
prepare quick evaluation procedures such as those used by the State of
Illinois in processing permit applications for incinerators based upon tb
ft
Incinerator Institute of America (HA) incinerator standards0 (see
Chapter 5 for computer program and evaluation procedures).
Design characteristics of equipment may be dictated by the material
processed or stored. For example, floating roof tanks may be necessary
for the storage of volatile organic compounds. The standards
can require that the roof be a double deck pontoon type or internal
floating cover, resting on the surface of the liquid with seals to
close the space between the roof edge and the tank wall. Another
equipment standard for handling volatile organic compounds prescribes
that all pumps and compressors used in this service shall have
9
mechanical seals or seals of equal efficiency.
The prohibition of the use of equipment would also come under
regulations classed as equipment standards. This part of the
rule prevents the use of certain equipment such as single chamber
incinerators, beehive coking ovens and hand fired combustion equipment.
Process Standards
Process standards are based upon the emission of specific contaminants.
The definition of a process may vary from unit operations to the com-
plete manufacture of a product. Processes are usually characterized
according to the mechanical, chemical or physical operation which is
intended to be controlled. Fundamental processes include combustion,
drying, size reduction, refining, liquid or solid materials transfer,
incineration, and others. By way of example, the following standards
are defined by classification of process.
-------
4.11
1. Fuel Combustion Equipment
a. Visible emissions not to exceed No. 1 Ringelmann or 20%
opacity except for short.periods during such operations as
soot blowing and start up.
b. Particulate emissions not to exceed 0.10 pounds per million
BTU of heat input.
c. Oxides of nitrogen emissions calculated as nitrogen dioxide
limited to 0.2 pound per million BTU of heat input.
2. Asphalt Air Blowing
"A person shall not operate or use any article, machine, equipment
or other contrivance for the air blowing of asphalt unless all
gases, vapors and gas-entrained effluents from such an article,
machine, equipment or other contrivance are:
a. Incinerated at temperatures of not less than 1400 degrees
Fahrenheit for a period of not less than 0.3 seconds; or
b. Processed in such a manner determined by the Air Pollution
Control Officer to be equally, or more, effective for the
purpose of air pollution control than (a) above."
-------
4.12
D- Indus try S tandards
The standards for control of the emission of air contaminants may be
based upon an industrial classification such as nitric acid plants,
zinc smelters or copper smelters. Industry standards usually concen-
trate on a particular class of air contaminant, for example, oxides of
sulfur in primary copper smelting or oxides of nitrogen from the
production of nitric acid.
These standards do not necessarily preclude the inclusion of
regulations curtailing the emission of other air contaminants. An
example of this are rules intended for the abatement of fugitive dust
and visible emissions.
Standards of this type may be simply stated by covering the entire
operation, rather than addressing separate processes. This is shown
in the following:
1. Nitric Acid Plants12
Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO ) calculated as nitrogen dioxide
X
(N0_) shall be limited to 5.5 pounds per ton of acid produced
(2.8 kg/metric ton). Acid produced is expressed in tons of equiva-
lent 100 percent strength nitric acid.
2. Sulfuric Acid Plants13
The emission of sulfur dioxide (SO,,) shall be limited to
6.5 pounds per ton (3.25 kg/metric ton) of 100 percent acid
produced.
-------
4.13
3. Sulfur Recovery Plants
The emission of oxides of sulfur, calculated as sulfur dioxide
(S02) shall be limited to 0.01 pound (kg.) per pound (kg.) of
sulfur processed.
4. Non-Ferrous Smelters
The emission of oxides of sulfur, calculated as sulfur dioxide
from primary non-ferrous smelter shall be based upon the following
equations:
Copper Smelters: Y = 0.2X
Zinc Smelters: Y = 0.564 X °'85
Lead Smelters: Y = 0.98 X °'77
Where:
X = Total sulfur fed to smelter (Ibs/hr)
Y = Sulfur dioxide emissions (Ibs/hr)."
E. Zoning
Urban planning is generally concerned with planning for land-use,
transportation and environmental design to meet criteria intended to
promote health, welfare and safety. Such criteria may relate to
efficient transportation, aesthetics, open spaces, optimum location
of industrial, commercial and recreational facilities, air pollution,
noise, glare, vibration, waste disposal facilities and other
environmental considerations.
Zoning is a method of implementing an urban or master plan by assigning
and enforcing prescribed land use functions to given parcels of land.
Zoning may include the special handling of individual zone exception and
land use permit cases which may necessitate variations in the original
plan or which concern previously unanticipated land use functions.
-------
4.14
Since zoning is based on multiple criteria that must be satisfied, it
is likely that in many cases zoning does not adequately take into account
the varied air pollution problems that may result from a particular land
use function. This is particularly true with respect to potential
nuisances, the involvement of reactive air contaminants or the role of
meteorology in accumulating air contaminants and transporting them to
receptors at more distant locations.
The overall air pollution control program should interface with zoning
and planning, particularly in the areas of meteorology, emissions inven-
tory, air monitoring, air pollution modeling, the permit system and
enforcement. The permit system, in particular, can provide planning
agencies with detailed information on given types of source activities,
and the impact of any source activity on a variety of environments. This
information should be made available through formal liaison or coopera-
tive activity with planning and zoning departments to establish zoning
criteria which, in themselves, will prevent the placement of activities
at locations which are clearly undesirable from the standpoint of air
pollution. Zoning strategies can and should consider achieving air qualit]
standards as a major factor in devising land use plans for bo^ local and
i 16
regional areas .
Planning is an iterative process. This is especially true in land use
planning in which the problem of air pollution control must be considered.
The urban planner must work closely with his counterpart in the air
pollution control agency so that he may keep abreast of technological
developments and industrial trends which may affect both near and long
term land use plans. Some of these source control strategies are listed
below:
-------
4.15
• Emission control regulations and enforcement programs;
• Economic incentives (tax credits, grants and loans);
• Economic disincentives (emission charges, fines, law suites, etc.);
• Fuel policies;
• Stack height regulations; and
• Heating system centralization and regulations.
As a control function, the air pollution control permit system will be a .
valuable aid in enforcing the zoning regulations. The grid location of
the proposed installation will determine if there is a restriction
against a particular type of equipment or process in that location.
By their nature, large industrial installations and power generaring
facilities will receive special attention from all government regulatory
agencies. It is in these cases that the urban planner and air pollution
control engineer should work together in order to avoid the creation of
local nuisances. The planning of the location of large operations,
taking into account meteorology and topography, is a significant step
in this direction.
The engineer who considers an application for a permit to construct or a
certificate to operate equipment or processes where there is an air
pollution potential, must also be familiar with the local or regional
zoning regulations so that he can consider these constraints in his
evaluations. In many regions, zoning permits cannot be issued without
evidence that an air pollution permit has been issued. This practice
should be mandatory to avoid interagency differences as well as to
assure complete consideration of all complementary regulations. The
air pollution control agency should be equipped to perform all field
functions relative to the enforcement of air pollution control regula-
tions including those which are under the jurisdiction of zoning agencies.
This would necessitate a separate reporting function but would avoid
overlapping enforcement activities.
-------
4.16
REFERENCES
1. Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971, p. 15489 and 15493.
2. Welsburd, M.I. Air Pollution Control Field Operations Manual. USDHEW,
PHS, Division of Air Pollution. 1962, p. 57.
3. Danielson, J.G. (ed.). Air Pollution Engineering Manual. USDHEW, PHS.
The National Center for Air Pollution Control and the Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District. PHS No. 999-AP-40. 1967, Appendix B,
p. 861.
4. Department of Public Safety, Division of Air Pollution Control, City of
.St. Louis, Ordinance 54699.
5. Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971, p. 15495.
6. Weisburd, M.I., A. Stein, R.J. Bryan, L.G. Wayne, and A. Kokin. Air
Pollution Control Field Operations Manual (Revised Edition, February 1972).
Task Order 1 for Control Agency Procedures Branch, Office of Air Programs,
EPA, p. 1.33 and 1.34. Contract No. CPA 70-122.
7. Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971, p. 15496.
8. I.I.A. Incinerator Standards. Incinerator Institute of America,
New York. May 1966.
9. Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971, p. 15496.
10. Federal Register. Vol, 36, No. 247. December 23, 1971, p. 24878.
11. Rules and Regulations of the Air Pollution Control District, County of
Los Angeles. August 31, 1971, p. 54-A.
12. Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971, p. 15497.
13. Ibid., p. 15496.
14. Ibid., p. 15496.
15. Ibid., p. 15496.
16. Voorhees, A.M. and Associates, Inc. and Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and
Associates. A Guide for Reducing Air Pollution Impacts Through Urban
Planning. October, 1971 (unpublished).
-------
CHAPTER 5
ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
I. INTRODUCTION
The air pollution engineer's evaluation is usually performance oriented.
He often must consider a variety of air pollution control systems and air
cleaning devices used to control the emissions from any number of processes
that will meet a given standard of allowable emissions. For example, a
baghouse, electrostatic precipitator or a venturi scrubber may be specified
to control the effluent from a basic oxygen steel furnace.
In making his assessment, the engineer thus may draw from chemical,
mechanical, and sanitary engineering disciplines and from air pollution
control engineering experience. Often the total expertise of an engineering
group is necessary to treat a problem properly.
Systems adopted to assess industrial processes and review plans for permits
to construct air pollution control equipment consist of the flow of documents
within the agency, engineering evaluation, preparation of recommendations
and consultations with applicants. These elements of the permit system
are described in the following sections of this chapter.
II. PERMIT APPLICATION HANDLING
Systematic handling of permit applications is vital for economical
operation, fast turnaround and efficient use of manpower. The flow of
the permit application and supporting documents is treated in Chapter 2.
Figures 2.1, 2.10, 2.12 and 2.14, in particular, describe the steps taken
in processing applications. Actions taken while the application is being
processed are further shown in the activity chart, Table 5.1.
-------
5.2
Table 5.1. Permit system activity chart
PARTICIPANT
ACTION
Applicant
Submit application for:
1. Permit to construct and certificate to
operate new equipment
2. Change of ownership of affected facility
3. Modification of equipment
4. Change of premises
5. Periodic reinspection
Agency Permit Application
Receiving Unit
1. Receive permit application
2. Check for completeness, if incomplete
return to applicant
3. Log in
4. Accept filing fee & issue receipt
5. Prepare file (dossier)
6. Transmit file to engineering unit
supervisor for evaluation
Supervisor Permit Processing
Unit
Engineer
1. Assign to engineer—advise receiving
unit of assignment
2. Record assignment
1. Check application for completeness of
technical data
2. Request additional information from
applicant if required
3. For permit to construct:
a. Review and evaluate equipment and
processes including operating
condition
b. Review and evaluate air pollution
collection system
c. Review and evaluate air pollution
control device
d. Summary and conclusions
e. Recommendations
-------
5.3
Table 5.1. Permit system activity chart (continued)
PARTICIPANT
ACTION
Engineer (continued)
Supervisor Permit-Processing
Unit
Agency Receiving Unit
Applicant
4.
f. Transmit file to supervisor for
review
For certificate to operate:
a. Review process and equipment
description
b. Advise applicant of desired time
of inspection
Make final inspection
Prepare inspection report
Make recommendations
Request source test if warranted
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
Transmit file to supervisor for
review
Act on recommendation
a. Approve with conditions if needed
b. Deny
c. Request additional inspections
Return to receiving unit for:
a. Issuance of permit/certificate
b. Denial of permit/certificate
1. Notify applicant
2. Collect fee
3. Record necessary data
4. File dossier
If permit/certificate not approved or
if permit conditions are not acceptable;
a. Refile after objections rectified
b. Recourse to administrative hearing
board for appeal
-------
5.4
Table 5.1. Permit system activity chart (continued)
PARTICIPANT
Administrative Hearing Board
Agency
ACTION
1.
2.
3.
Notify agency of appeal
Hear appeal
Render decision
a. In favor of applicant
b. In favor of agency
c. Set plan for compliance and where
applicable issue variance
1. Meet with applicant to discuss plan
for compliance
2. Detail milestones of plan
III. EVALUATION PROCEDURE
The evaluation of permit applications should emphasize the approach the
applicant has taken in the design of the air pollution control system, no
just the detection of mathematical errors. Many control systems are stil
designed by rule of thumb which, in some instances, may be satisfactory!
but the application of fundamental engineering principles should prevail.
To facilitate the evaluation the agency should require that design cal-
culations be submitted with the application for the permit to construct.
The technical evaluation of an air pollution control system includes the
following determinations:
• The potential quantity and type of air contaminants generated by
the source;
• Rate of contaminant emissions;
• Volume of gases to be handled by the air pollution control system;
• Adequacy of the design of the air pollution control system;
• Efficiency of the air cleaning device.
-------
5.5
These determinations require the compilation of the following data:
A. Basic Equipment and Operating Data
The term "basic equipment" refers to equipment which performs a basic
productive function as distinguished from control equipment (see below)
These include such equipment as boilers, incinerators, rendering
cookers, rotary kilns, etc., which by their operation may emit air
contaminants. The equipment may stand alone to provide a service or
product or may be connected in series or in parallel to link dependent
processes. Precise definitions of basic equipment will depend upon
the regulations of the agency considering the application for a permit
to construct. Basic equipment can be categorized as two types—stand
alone (or batch) and process components that are interdependently
linked to form a continuous process.
A method of describing equipment using code numbers based upon the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) is described in the "Air
Pollution Manual of Coding." This approach can be used to construct
a data base applicable to EDP. However, the engineer processing the
permit application will require greater detail for his evaluation
including information in narrative form which is not easily managed
by EDP.
In describing the basic equipment, the engineer uses drawings,
specifications and catalogs submitted by the applicant. From these
data he determines the external and internal dimensions and physical
characteristics of the equipment that may affect the air pollution
control system. The determination of potential emissions from basic
equipment depends upon the physical characteristics of the equipment,
the method of operation and the material processed, all of which must
be detailed. This information is needed to determine flow rates,
retention time, and the resulting release of contaminants as may be
derived from the type and quantity of material processed or burned.
-------
5.6
The type and quantity of material processed is the starting point in
considering the qualitative and quantitative nature of any possible
air contaminant emission. Gas flow rates are calculated from the
products of combustion, fan or compressor outputs or volume displaced
by movement of materials. These gases are the conveying medium for
the air contaminants. Retention time in the basic equipment provides
the basis for estimating the time of evolution of some classes of
contaminants such as oxides of nitrogen, CO, and oxides of sulfur.
To arrive at the point where these estimates may be calculated the
following data must be compiled:
1. Fuels
(a) Type and firing rate
(1) liquid
(2) solid
(3) gaseous
(b) Chemical composition
(c) Heating value
2. Combustion Controls
3. Fans and Compressors
(a) Capacity
(b) Power requirements
4. Process Weight
(a) Type and quantity of all material charged to the equipment
per unit time, excluding liquid or gaseous fuels, air and
recycled inert materials
5. Operational Details
(a) Unit processes
(b) Process control instrumentation
(c) Hours per day and days per week of use
6. Storage Vessels
(a) Capacity
(b) Dimensions
-------
5.7
(c) Chemical and physical description of material stored
(1). liquid
(2) solid
(3) gaseous
(d) Pressure
7. Incinerators
(a) Rated capacity
(b) Description of material charged
(1) composition
(2) rate of charging
(3) auxiliary fuel
(4) combustion air
8. Metallurgical Equipment
(a) Process
(b) Capacity
(c) Fuels & Specification
(d) Process weight
9 - Bulk Handling
(a) Material processed
(b) Process weight
(c) Description of method of handling
(1) mechanical
(2) pneumatic
(d) Moisture content
10. Chemical Manufacture, Petroleum Processing and Others
(a) Process weight
(b) Fuels
(c) Operational details
11. Plot Plan
-------
5.8
The details of equipment operation are an essential part of the equip-
ment description. These should cover charge or feed rates for
continuous or batch operations; methods operators use to determine
such rates, i.e., use of flow measurements, weighing devices, process
control instruments, including temperature and pressure gages, flow
meters and liquid level measuring devices; the employment of automatic
analyzers, and such devices as draft gages, smoke meters, combustion
controls, alarms, and continuous stack gas and process monitoring
systems; and details of any emergency relief systems used and
schedules for equipment operation.
These data, supplied by the applicant, must also contain an explanation
of the effect operational changes would have on the emission of air
contaminants.
B. Description of the Air Pollution Control System
An air pollution control system is composed of ducts, pipes, hoods,
mechanical seals and other mechanisms which are designed to capture
or contain liquid, solid, or gaseous air contaminants at "the source
of generation, and pumps, fans, compressors or other devices which
convey contaminant-laden air to the air cleaning equipment. The
total control system should be emphasized since a true reduction
in contaminant emissions cannot be achieved unless there is effective
pickup at the source.
As in the description of the basic process, details are important.
These should cover information on hood design to assure effective
pickup under the severest of operating conditions; properly sized
ducts and air movers to ensure adequate conveying velocities; door
and hatch seal details to preclude leaking; and assurance that the
air pollution control system is always in operation when the basic
equipment is in use.
-------
5.9
Plans and specifications are essential to the description and
evaluation of air pollution control systems. Manufacturers' speci-
fications for equipment should be supported by test data. It is not
enough to say that an electrostatic^precipitator is 98.5% efficient.
These claims should be supported by test data on similar equipment
or by design or analytical data which will be validated by source
inspections and stack tests.
IV. METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
The approval or denial of an application should be based principally on
engineering calculations. With this approach to permit evaluation the
agency should require the applicant to submit design calculations with
his request for permit. This will allow the engineer assessing the
application to make his own calculations concise and facilitate the entire
permit processing operation. Gradations of the complexity of calculations
necessary will vary with the systems to be evaluated but should be kept to
a minimum wherever possible.
A. Assessment of the Air Pollution Potential of the Basic Equipment or
Processes
The first step in the evaluation of a permit to construct is the
assessment of the potential air pollution emissions from the
operation of the basic equipment. This is accomplished by using design
data which describes physical features and operational characteristics.
From this description and the specifications the engineer will estimate
the magnitude and composition of the air contaminants, or confirm the
estimates submitted by the applicant.
Overall losses may be estimated from material balance calculations.
The engineer assessing the air pollution control system must be con-
cerned with the location of the source of emissions to be able to
-------
5.10
appraise the effectiveness of the air pollution control system. Closi
inspection of the plans, knowledge of the basic process, test data,
field observation reports of similar equipment, and the literature
are used to make these determinations. Processes needing permits to
construct, that singly or in aggregate are small contributors to the
regional air pollution problem (such as small paint spray booths),
should have only an examination of booth configuration, baffles or
filters, fan capacity, type and quantity of paint used and hours of
operation. The primary consideration should be nuisance potential,
assessed by location of the equipment relative to nearby housing or
industry.
B. Calculations
The complexity of the equipment or system will dictate the depth of
the design check. Simpler systems may require only an examination
of hood indraft velocity, fan capacity, air pollution control device
efficiency or process weight and allowable emissions.
1. General Calculations
The fundamental computations performed in assessing permits to
construct most classes of air pollution control equipment will
include one or more of the following:
a. Calculations to determine the volume and composition of the
products of combustion based upon fuel rate and composition.
Sample combustion calculations may be found in Chapters 8
and 9 of the "Air Pollution Engineering Manual."2
b. Flow calculations to determine conveying velocities, inlet
velocities, air flow profiles and power requirements. These
calculations will consider cooling by dilution, water spray»
radiation cooling or other heat exchange devices.
-------
5.11
c. Effectiveness of the air cleaning device is based upon the
condition of the gas entering, i.e., grain loading, volume,
temperature, humidity, and chemical composition. Calculations
relative to the effectiveness of a specific type of equipment
for reduction of contaminants vary. However, in all cases
the stated condition of the gases entering the air pollution
control systems must be determined. Emission factors from
many processes are contained in "Compilation of Air Pollution
3
Emission Factors." Detailed calculating techniques for most
control devices now in common use are to be found in the
manuals of the "Institute for Air Pollution Training—Control
4 5
of Gaseous Emissions and Control of Particulate Emissions,"
the "Air Pollution Engineering Manual," a "Manual of Electro-
static Precipitator Technology,"7 and "Handbook of Fabric
Q
Filter Technology."
2. Example of the Evaluation Principles
An application for a permit to construct an exhaust system and
baghouse serving an oil fired rotary furnace for melting brass
is being evaluated. The equipment and process description of the
furnace includes its physical dimensions, charging and discharge
points, composition and weight of charge, firing rate, melting
rate and grade and quantity of fuel used. The kinds of questions
that should be asked in this type of evaluation are described
below. More detailed examples of step-by-step procedures are
described in Chapter 6.
a. Potential Air Contaminant Emissions from the Basic Equipment
(1) What is the anticipated rate of emission of metallic
fume from the operation of the furnace?
-------
5.12
Process weight - 3600 pounds per hour of yellow brass
scrap - approximate composition 76% CU, 14.7% Zn, 4.7% Pb,
Q
3.4% Sn and 0.67% Fe. (emission factor = 60 Ib/ton)
Estimated emission rate = 2QQQ Ib/ton X 6° lb/ton = 10.8 lb/h:
(2) What is the volume of gases emitted from the furnace?
17 gals./hr. of No. 5 fuel oil
Exhaust temperature of gas is 2600°F.
Products of combustion (Table D6 page 881 Air Pollution
Engineering Manual)
206.6 SCF 17 gal 8 Ib hr
yr S Xf .1 i V
Ib oil burned @ 10% excess air hr gal 60 min
=468 SCFM
15.96 Ib 17 gal 8 Ib hr
— _ . L - - .... - i ..-. V -*-* -tr . v - - -
Ib oil burned @ 10% excess air hr gal 60 min
= 36.2 lb
mm
b. Basic Equipment Operational Considerations
(1) What is the condition of the metal charged to the furnace-
oily, greasy, etc.?
If the material is dirty there may be several adverse
results. The addition of "fuel" by the inclusion of
grease and oil may require more combustion air to reduce
smoke from burning of the grease resulting in a higher
exhaust volume. If there is a smoky fire during start
up, the air pollution control device (especially if it
-------
5.13
is a baghouse) may be affected by plugging of the bags
with oily carryover in the effluent. If this is a problem,
then it may be in order to issue a conditional permit
which states that only clean scrap can be charged to the
furnace.
(2) Is the burner properly sized to handle the volume of
fuel needed for melting the charge and maintaining the
desired fuel temperature?
Manufacturers' data must be relied upon to substantiate
the firing rates and type of fuel specified. Therefore,
it is necessary to have the manufacturers' specifications
for evaluation of the burners.
c. Air Pollution Control System
(1) Is the ventilation system capacity adequate to exhaust
the effluent from the furnace?
From the basic equipment calculations the theoretical
furnace effluent will be 468 SCFM (36.2 Ib/min @ 2600°F.)
The baghouse design operating temperature is 250°F. with
cooling by dilution air. The volume of gases to be
handled by the exhaust system then will be 36.2 Ib/min
@ 2600°F. plus the dilution air, which is assumed to be
100°F.
Heat gained by ambient air = heat lost by products of
combustion
-------
5.14
M C At = M C At
a p a pc p pc
(M #'s) (0.25) (250-100) = (36.2) (0.27) (2,600-250)
3.
M =613 Ib/min
a
or 613 Ib/min = Q^Q cm @ IO()OF Dilution
0.071 Ib/ft
Total Volume of Gases :
From furnace = 468 (2fQ * = 639 CFM
Dilution Air = 8,640 (IQQ + 460)= 10,950 CFM
Total = 11,589 CFM @ 250°F.
(2) What is the capture velocity at the hood and is it
satisfactory for this application?
The hood is close fitting with an open area of 6 sq. ft.
During the melting phase of the operation the furnace
fires directly into the hood . The calculated indraft
velocity will be ' s = 1930 ft/min. This
is acceptable if there are no excessive cross drafts in
the melting room. If during the inspection it is
determined that there is a disturbance of fume pickup
by cross drafts, side panels may be added to the hood.
-------
5.15
(3) Is the exhaust fan properly sized to handle the system load?
The pressure drop through the baghouse (manufacturers' specs.)
Is 3 inches of water column, the exhaust system flow cal-
culations show a pressure drop of 3 inches of water. The
fan static pressure is the inlet static pressure (6") plus
the outlet static pressure (0.3) minus the velocity head
(0.24) or 5.06" of WC. (Static pressure and velocity pressure
selected for this example.)
The fan tables supplied with the application provide the
data to compute the capacity of the fan at the calculated
static pressure, temperature, given rpm and motor horsepower.
(4) Is the baghouse properly sized for this application?
The calculation of the filter ratio (the velocity of the gases
through the bags) is a longstanding quick evaluation procedure
that can be used to estimate filtering effectiveness. However,
other variables including grain loading of effluent, type of
cloth, and bag cleaning method determine the acceptable filter
ratio.
d. Air Pollution Control Equipment Operational Considerations
(1) Do the materials of construction lend themselves to long
and low-maintenance service?
The ductwork and fan, if it is upstream of the baghouse,
should be fabricated from materials capable of withstanding
the erosion and corrosion from the fumes and particulates
in the effluent gases.
-------
5.16
(2) Are there adequate pressure, temperature or other instruments
and recorders in the system to allow for inspections during
operation to verify operating conditions?
A manometer or recording instrument to indicate the pressure
drop across the baghouse and a temperature sensing device to
act as a safeguard against reduced filtering capacity and
damage to the bags from high temperatures should be employed.
(3) What shutdown procedure is planned in the event of an
emergency to keep the emission of air contaminants from
the process at an acceptable level?
The shutdown procedure must include the steps to be taken
to assure full utilization of all air pollution control
systems until shutdown has been achieved.
(4) What is the procedure for disposing of material collected by
the air pollution control system? Consideration must be
given to this factor to assure that a secondary air pollution
problem will not be generated by the disposal of the captured
material.
With the satisfactory answers to these and other questions
the engineer may then recommend a permit to construct the
air pollution control system.
-------
5.17
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The decision to issue or deny a permit to construct cannot be based
only on the results of the calculations. The entire evaluation process
must be employed.A recommendation to grant the permit to construct must
be explicit. A permit to construct should not be issued without qualify-
ing conditions which clearly state anticipated construction start and
completion dates (subject to review for unusual circumstances such as
weather or strikes); fuel usage and specification (sulfur content for
example) ; normal operating hours and days; a requirement for prompt
notification to the agency of design changes which may affect the emission
of air contaminants; specific instructions regarding the location of
permanent scaffolding and sampling ports; smoke alarms or recorders or
other instrumentation deemed necessary to assure proper operation of the
system. The applicant should also notify the agency of construction com-
pletion dates and shakedown schedule so that an inspection and stack test,
if required, can be scheduled.
The denial of a permit to construct must be meticulously documented since,
in all likelihood, appeal board or court action will result from the
denial. Before the denial is issued, the agency should meet with the
applicant to discuss the reasons for the pending denial. The applicant
should be notified in writing of the reason for the pending denial and
request his design changes to meet the standards. This is not a simple
procedure. Vague references to design feature shortcomings will not be
acceptable. Specific points such as the fact that calculated indraft
velocity (50 ft./min.) at the hood serving a brass crucible furnace is
insufficient to effect the required pickup at a pot temperature of 1900°F.
should be so stated. These assertions should be supported by test data
for similar equipment, accepted practice standards, or fundamental
engineering design practices. Where agreement cannot be reached or where
-------
5.18
the applicant refuses to modify his design, he should be notified in
writing that the application for permit to construct is denied based
upon the reasons documented in the permit file.
In the case where a fundamental design is unacceptable, such as a single
chamber incinerator with no air pollution control system, a statement of
agency policy or legal restriction against this equipment will suffice.
Blanket denials, as a statement of policy or law, can be expeditiously
handled by refusal to accept a permit application for a particular type
of equipment.
VI. CONSULTATIONS TO REMEDY MINOR DEFECTS
The engineer in checking the plans for a permit to construct should com-
plete his evaluation before contacting the applicant regarding some minor
point in the design where a change may be required. This will decrease
the number of telephone calls or letters and result in fewer meetings or
communications among applicants and engineers. There may be times when
some information or data necessary to complete the evaluation can be easily
obtained by a telephone call. All such communication should be recorded
as to date, time, person contacted and result of the conversation. If a
letter is used to request data or to clear a point of confusion, a copy of
the letter should suffice as the record of the communication.
Unless the engineer who is evaluating the permit application sets firm
time limits for receiving the additional data or resolving the problems,
large or small, many meetings or letters may result which are time consuming
and costly to the agency. In any case, the problem should be clearly stated
to the applicant. The engineer must also be sufficiently flexible to accept
an alternative that he didn't think of if it will do the job.
-------
5.19
VII. USE OF COMPUTERS FOR ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS
A. Introduction
An integral part of any effective permit system involves the efficient
utilization of air pollution engineers. Since these individuals are
currently in short supply, it is imperative that they be supported and
aided in their evaluation functions.
At most agencies, engineers presently use slide rules and calculators
to carry out computations pertaining to the evaluation of equipment.
Although slide rules and calculators are convenient instruments, they
force the engineer to go through the same steps, over and over again,
for each similar appraisal. This process is often time consuming and
is inherently subject to a small error.
Conversations with engineers at numerous state and local agencies
indicated that the use of electronic data processing equipment would
be helpful. A system that is employable for equipment evaluations
could increase the engineer's capacity and improve his accuracy.
B. Types of Systems
Since the vast majority of the calculations performed by the engineer
are short and straightforward, a simple EDP system may be desirable.
The system must be easy for him to use, yield him results much more
quickly than with the slide rule and calculator, fit his needs
by being flexible, and be cost-effective. If these conditions are
not met, the engineer will not feel comfortable using the equipment
and attempt to revert back to his time-tested methods.
-------
5.20
A conversational type computer system, utilizing teletypewriters or
CRT devices, is easy to operate and can be used by a novice with no
more than an hour of instruction concerning its operation. Results
may be obtained virtually instantaneously once the system is
operating. In larger batch type computer installations, the
programmer is rarely concerned with the physical act of running the
machine. This task is generally handled by trained operators.
If the engineer writes the programs he uses, they will fit his
needs and give him the flexibility he must have. Many engineers
are familiar with the FORTRAN programming language. However, even
those who have never used a computer can learn BASIC and 'be reason-
ably proficient in the language within a few days. Becoming acquainted
with the use of FORTRAN will generally require a few weeks or longer,
depending upon the amount of time that the engineer can devote to it.
Assistance can be obtained at universities, colleges, and junior
colleges where beginning courses in computer programming are offered.
The cost-effectiveness of any system is largely dependent upon the
volume of permit applications to be processed, and the effectiveness
of the available staff. At agencies with extremely low volume, data
processing equipment would be a luxury. For this type of an operation,
a programmable calculator might be a useful tool. These instruments
operate at a much slower pace than computers, are not as powerful
or as convenient to use, but are less expensive.
For agencies with high volume, an automatic data processing system
is indispensable. It may take one of three popular forms. The use
of mini-computers is today becoming widespread in numerous industries.
Many have easy-to-use FORTRAN and/or BASIC compilers, and may operate
with a large variety of peripheral equipment. For engineering appli-
-------
5.21
cations, it would be desirable for the computer to operate via a
teletypewriter or CRT terminal as a user convenience. The system
may be purchased or leased for a modest sum as compared with
standard computers. In addition, the machine will be available
for many uses other than equipment evaluation.
Alternatively, the agency may subscribe to a typical time-sharing
service. This sytem operates over normal telephone lines, usually
on a large-scale computer installation, via a teletypewriter or CRT
terminal. The user is charged only for the actual time spent
including a minimum monthly charge. In general, time-sharing services
are expensive but may be perfectly correct under the right volume
requirements. Less expensive time-sharing systems on mini-computers
are currently being developed and put into use.
Traditional batch or remote batch computer installations are less
desirable for typical equipment evaluation applications. Possible
problems may arise in two areas. Firstly, the waiting time incurred
between the submittal of a program to be run on the computer and the
receipt of the results may be annoying to the engineer. This delay
will generally last from between a few hours to a day. Secondly,
data readied for batch runs will have to be prepared and checked
with much more care than would be necessary for conversational runs.
This is due primarily to the fact that data input via terminals
may be easily corrected if in error, while once data cards are
submitted to the computer they are no longer subject to modifications.
C. Prototype Mini-Computer System
In order to demonstrate how a mini-computer system might aid an air
pollution engineer in an agency with a medium to high volume of permit
applications, several typical engineering evaluation programs were
-------
5.22
created. The machine used was a Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC)
PDP-11, with a paper tape reader/punch, a teletype terminal, and 8K
of core space. All routines were coded in the conversational pro-
gramming language, BASIC.
As an example, consider the program to find the escape velocity and
exhaust rate from the hood of an exhaust system to prevent leakage.
Figure 5.1 presents the background to this problem and a typical
solution as it may be carried out by an engineer. Just going through
the calculations would take about a half hour using a slide rule and/
or calculator. Each time an application for a similar exhaust system
is processed, the engineer will have to go through the same calcu-
lations, just changing the numbers.
A computer program has a great advantage over a slide rule and a cal-
culator by allowing the user to standardize his calculation procedures
and simply alter the parameters or inputs to the program each time it
is used. If at some later date it is desired to modify the program
to suit the user or the situation, this is easily achieved.
Figure 5.2 depicts a computer program used to solve the problem
described in Figure 5.1. This program is short, easy to code,
and may be used over and over again. Figure 5.3 shows a flowchart
of this routine while Table 5.2 contains a description of all items
utilized with their units of measure. The latter is used especially
to prepare and input data.
The program in operation is illustrated in Figure 5.4. The user
types in the input data when it is requested. Seconds later the
r.'
results are printed clearly and accurately. Actual running time
for this routine, including input and output, is less than 60 seconds
-------
5.23
Specific Problems
Steaming tanks
When the hot source is a steaming tank of water,
Hemeon (1955) develops a special equation by as-
suming a latent heat of 1,000 Btu per pound of
water evaporated. He derives the following equa-
tionfor the total volume required for a low-canopy
hood venting a tank of steaming hot water.
= 290 (W Af D )
1/3
(20)
where
t
W
= the total hood exhaust rate, cfm
the rate at which steam is released,
Ib/min
= the area of the hood face, assumed
approximately equal to the tank area,
ft2
D = the diameter for circular tanks or the
•width for rectangular tanks, ft.
qc = the rate at which heat is transferred
to the air in the hood from the hot
source, Btu/min
A = the area of the orifice, ft
o
t = the average temperature of the air in-
side the hood, °F.
Figure 16. Illustration of leakage from
top of hood (Heroeon, 1955).
Preventing leakage
Hoods for hot processes must be airtight. When
leaks or openings in the hood above the level of
the hood face occur, as illustrated in Figure 16,
they will be a source of leakage owing to a chim-
ney effect, unless the volume vented from the hood
is substantially increased. Since openings may
sometimes be unavoidable in the upper portions
of an enclosure or canopy hood, a means of de-
termining the amount of the leakage and the in-
crease in the volume required to eliminate the
leakage is necessary. Hemeon (1955) has devel-
oped an equation to determine the volume of leak-
age from a sharp-edge orifice in a hood at a point
above the hood face.
1/3
iA (460 + t )
where
the velocity of escape through orifices
in the upper portions of a hood, fpm
the vertical distance above the hood
face to the location of the orifice, ft
A small amount of leakage can often be tolerated;
however, if the emissions aretoxic or malodorous,
the leakage must be prevented completely. If all
the cracks or openings in the upper portion of the
hood cannot be eliminated, the volume vented from
the hood must be increased so that the minimum
indraft velocity through all openings including the
hood lace is in excess of the escape velocity through
the orifice calculated bymeans of equation 21. The
value of qc may be determined by using the appro-
priate heat transfer coefficient from Table 5 to-
gether with equation 1 5 or by any other appropriate
means. This method is-illustrated in example 10.
Example 10
Given:
Several oil-fired crucible furnaces are hooded
and vented as illustrated in Figure 16. The en-
closure is 20 feet long. It is not possible to pre-
vent leakage at the top of the enclosure. Total
area of the leakage openings is 1 square foot. The
fuel rate is 30 gallons per hour and the heating
value is 140, 000 Btu per gallon. Assume 80CF
ambient air and 150DF average temperature of
gases in the hood.
Figure 5.1.
Background to escape velocity and exhaust rate problem
with manual type solution (sheet 1 of 2)
(source: reference 13)
-------
5.24
Problem:
Determine the minimum face velocity and total
exhaust rate required to prevent leakage of con-
taminated air through the upper openings by as-
suming all openings are sharp-edge orifices.
Solution:
The rate of heat generation:
q = 30^x HO.OOO^f. x-^r
Mc hr gal 60
= 70, 000-^H.
mm
Total open area:
A = (20 x 7) + 1 = 141 ft2
o
The escape velocity through the leakage orifice:
-e = 20° "(460 + t )
200 ( (11>(70,000) V/3 = 420fpm
ve \141 (460 + 150) /
The required exhaust rate:
V - v A
t e o
V = (420)(141) = 59, 000 cf
Check mean hood air temperature:
Since q = V p c
-------
5.25
10 REM - FIND ESCAPE VELOCITY AND EXHAUST RATE FROM HOOD
20 PRINT
30 PRINT "ENTER El, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6 TO FIND ESCAPE VELOCITY"
40 PRINT " AND EXHAUST RATE FOR A HOOD"
50 PRINT
60 INPUT El, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6
70 PRINT
80 LET Q1=E1 * E2/60
90 LET Q2=(E4* Q1)/(E3 * (460 + E5))
100 LET Vl=200 * Q2| (1/3)
110 LET V2=V1 * E3
120 LET V3=Q1/(V2 * .075 * .24) + E6
130 PRINT "RATE OF HEAT GENERATION = "; Ql; "BTU/MIN"
140 PRINT "ESCAPE VELOCITY THRU LEAKAGE ORIFICE = "; VI; "FPM"
150 PRINT "EXHAUST RATE = "; V2; "CFM"
160 PRINT "MEAN HOOD TEMPERATURE = "; V3; "FAHR."
170 PRINT
180 GO TO 20
190 END
Figure 5.2. Escape velocity and exhaust rate computer program in BASIC
-------
5.26
START
PROGRAM
REQUESTS
INPUTS
ER TYPES
IN
DATA
DETERMINE
RATE OF
HEAT
GENERATION
COMPUTE
REQUIRED
EXHAUST RATE
FIND MEAN
HOOD AIR
TEMPERATURE
A
\
OUTPUT
RESULTS
CALCULATE
ESCAPE
VELOCITY
Figure 5.3. Flowchart of program to find exhaust rate and
escape velocity from a hood
-------
5.27
Table 5.2. Item descriptions for escape velocity
and exhaust rate computer program
HEM
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
Ql
Q2
VI
V2
V3
DESCRIPTION
Fuel use rate
Heating value
Total open area of orifice
Vertical distance above the hood face
Ave. temp, of the air inside the hood
Ave. temp, of the ambient air
Rate of heat generation
Temporary storage
Escape velocity thru leakage orifice
Exhaust rate
Mean hood temperature
UNITS
(gal./hr.)
(Btu/gal.)
(sq. ft.)
(ft.)
(deg. Fah.)
(deg. Fah.)
(Btu/min.)
( )
(fpm)
(cfm)
(deg. Fah.)
-------
5.28
ENTER F, H, A, D, Tl, T2 TO FIND ESCAPE VEL. & EXH. RATE
?3Q , 140000 , 141, 11. 150 . 80
RATE OF HEAT GENERATION = 70000 BTU/MIN
ESCAPE VELOCITY THRU LEAKAGE ORIFICE =415.2828 FPM
EXHAUST RATE = 58554.87 CFM
MEAN HOOD TEMPERATURE =146.4144 FAHR.
Underline indicates
user inputs.
Figure 5.4. Computer program execution to calculate the
escape velocity and exhaust rate of hood—
modified to reduce input/output time.
-------
5.29
This program may be expanded so that it becomes completely self-
contained. In this case, all data is requested by the routine
as it executes. The appropriate information is typed in as it
is required. Figure 5.5 contains the program in this other version,
and Figure 5.6 illustrates its use.
Both programs are coded to allow execution again with other data
after the results are printed. In this manner, experimentation
may be undertaken by the engineer to learn more about a particular
type of equipment. By modifying the parameters and simulating
many cases on the computer, he can increase his knowledge in a quick
and efficient manner.
D. Engineering Evaluation Diffusion Program
A model may be needed by engineers to evaluate the impact of emissions
from large point sources on air quality levels. These programs may be
based on the standard Gaussian diffusion equation, which follows:
X(x.y.z;H)
27TCT CT U
y Z
1 / z-H \ 21 + exp [~ 1 / z+H \ 21)
2 I— ] J [—![(—) \]
**
* exp -a/b = e where e is the base of natural logarithms and
is approximately equal to 2.7183.
** For an extensive discussion of this equation, refer to Turner,
D.B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates (source:
reference 14)
-------
5.30
10 PRINT
20 PRINT " FIND ESCAPE VELOCITY AND EXHAUST RATE FROM HOOD"
30 PRINT
40 REM
50 REM — DETERMINE RATE OF HEAT GENERATION
60 REM
70 PRINT "ENTER FUEL USE RATE IN GAL/HR"
80 INPUT El
90 PRINT "ENTER HEATING VALUE IN BTU/GAL"
100 INPUT E2
110 LET Ql = El * E2/60
120 PRINT
130 PRINT "
140 PRINT "RATE OF HEAT GENERATION = "; Ql; "BTU/MIN"
150 PRINT
160 REM
170 REM — DETERMINE ESCAPE VELOCITY THRU LEAKAGE ORIFICE
180 REM
190 PRINT "ENTER TOTAL OPEN AREA IN SQUARE FEET"
200 . INPUT E3
210 PRINT "ENTER VERTICAL DISTANCE ABOVE HOOD FACE IN FT"
220 INPUT E4
230 PRINT "ENTER AVERAGE AIR TEMP. IN FAH. INSIDE THE HOOD"
240 INPUT E5
250 LET VI = 200 *((E4 * Q1)/(E3 * (460 + E5)))f 1/3
260 PRINT
270 PRINT "ESCAPE VELOCITY THRU LEAKAGE ORIFICE = "; VI; "FPM"
280 PRINT
290 REM
300 REM--- FIND REQUIRED EXHAUST RATE
310 REM
320 LET V2 = VI * E3
330 PRINT
340 PRINT "EXHAUST RATE = "; V2; "CFM"
350 PRINT
360 REM
370 REM — CHECK MEAN HOOD AIR TEMPERATURE
380 REM
390 PRINT "ENTER AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE IN FAH."
400 INPUT E6
410 LET V3 = Q1/(V2 * .075 * .24) + E6
420 PRINT
430 PRINT "MEAN HOOD AIR TEMPERATURE = "; V3; "FAH."
440 PRINT
450 PRINT
460 GO TO 10
470 END
Figure 5.5. Alternate version of BASIC computer program to calculate
the escape velocity and exhaust rate of a hood
-------
5.31
FIND ESCAPE VELOCITY AND EXHAUST RATE OF HOOD
ENTER FUEL RATE IN GAL/HR
730
ENTER HEATING VALUE IN BTU/GAL
7140000
RATE OF HEAT GENERATION = 70000 BTU/MIN
ENTER TOTAL OPEN AREA IN SQUARE FEET
7141
ENTER VERTICAL DISTANCE ABOVE HOOD FACE IN FEET
ENTER AVERAGE AIR TEMP. IN FAH. INSIDE THE HOOD
7150
ESCAPE VELOCITY THRU LEAKAGE ORIFICE = 415.2828 FPM
EXHAUST RATE = 58554.87 CFM
ENTER AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE IN FAH.
780
MEAN HOOD AIR TEMPERATURE = 146.4144 FAH.
Underline indicates
user inputs.
Figure 5.6. Computer program execution of calculation
of escape velocity and exhaust rate of hood
-------
5.32
-3
Where: X is the pollutant concentration, g m
x,y,z is the three dimensional coordinate position for
.which the calculation is being made (x is the
downwind distance), m
H is the virtual stack height, m
cr is the standard deviation of plume concentration in
y
the horizontal direction (the horizontal
dispersion coefficient), m
er is the standard deviation of plume concentration in
z
the vertical direction (the vertical dispersion
coefficient), m
Q is the uniform emission rate of pollutants, g sec
u is the mean wind speed, m sec
For permit system applications, ground concentrations are of
primary interest. That is, the diffusion equation must be
evaluated for the case z=0. In this circumstance, the equation
above reduces to
X(x,y,0;H) = 9 exp
cr u
y z
i/H
21
1. Computer Program
The following values must be input to a computer program based
on the preceding equation:
• x the downwind distance travelled by the point source
emissions, m ;
• y the horizontal distance off of the x-axis at which
the calculation will occur, m ;
-------
5.33
• H the virtual stack height, m (the height of the
plume centerline when it becomes essentially level
and is the sum of the physical stack height, h, and
the plume rise, AH);
• Q the emission rate from the point source of the
pollutant being measured, g sec" ;
• u the mean wind speed, m sec" ; and
• S one of six stability classes (see Figure 5.7 and
5.8, and Table 5.3).
2. Virtual Stack Height
Since it is quite likely that the virtual stack height will not
be a known value, a special routine will be created to compute
an estimation of this quantity. One method of accomplishing
this employs Holland's equation which follows:
AH = Vsd (1.5 + 2.68 x 10~3 p TS — Ta d)
Ts
Where: AH is the rise of the plume above the stack, m
v is the stack gas exit velocity, m sec
s
d is the inside stack diameter, m
u is the wind speed, m sec
p is the atmospheric pressure, mb
T is the stack gas temperature, °K
s
T is the air temperature, °K
a
-3 -1 -1
and 2.68 x 10 is a constant having units of mb m . The
values v , d, p, T , and T are additional inputs.
S ' r * s' a
Moses and Strom have suggested a value of 1.86 times the AH from
the equation should be used for small stacks. For moderate size
power plants, Stumke and Rauch advise factors of 2.92 and 3.09,
respectively.
-------
5.34
The use of Holland's equation in this discussion serves only as an
example of one possible method of determining plume rise. A techniq,,,,,
given by Briggs i
in many situations.
given by Briggs is gaining wide acceptance and may be more accurat
3. Stability Class
There are six classes of stability coefficients as shown by the
curves in Figures 5.7 and 5.8 Class A represents the most
unstable atmospheric conditions, and class F the most stable.
The user will select from among classes A through F according
to Table 5.3.
The factors that must be taken into account when determining
stability class include surface roughness, height above the
surface, wind speed, distance from the source, turbulent struc-
ture of the atmosphere, and the sampling period. For this case,
the sampling period is assumed to be approximately ten minutes,
with only the lowest several hundred meters of the atmosphere
considered. The surface is assumed to be relatively open. The
wind speed is taken to be about 10 meters above the surface.
"Strong" incoming solar radiation corresponds to solar altitude
greater than 60° with clear skies; "slight" insolation correlates
to a solar altitude of from 15° to 35° with clear skies. Cloud-
iness will decrease incoming solar radiation and appropriate
adjustments must be made. For example, incoming radiation that
would be strong with clear skies, can be expected to be reduced
to moderate with broken (5/8 to 7/8 cloud cover) middle clouds,
and to slight with broken low clouds.
The above gives best results for rural areas and is less reliable
for urban regions. The difference is due mainly to the influence
of the city's surface roughness and the heat island effects on
atmospheric stability, with the largest variations occurring on
calm, clear nights.
-------
5.35
10,000
1,000
b 100
1 10
DISTANCE DOWNWIND,.km
Figure 5.7. Horizontal dispersion coefficient as a function of
downwind distance from the source
(source: reference 17)
100
-------
5.36
10
DISTANCE DOWNWIND, km
Figure 5.8. Vertical dispersion coefficient as a function of
downwind distance from the source
(source: reference 18)
100
-------
5.37
Table 5.3. Key to stability classes
(source: reference 19)
Day
Surface Wind
ipeed (at 10m),
m sec
< 2
2-3
3-5
5-6
> 6
Incoming
Solar Radiation
Strong Moderate
A
A-B
B
C
C
A-B
B
B-C
C-D
D
Slight
B
C
C
D
D
Thinly Overcast
or
> 4/8 Low Cloud
E
D
D
D
< 3/8
Cloud
F
E
D
D
The neutral class, D, should be assumed for overcast conditions during
day or night.
-------
5.38
4. Program Operation
The execution of the diffusion program is depicted by the flowchart
in Figure 5.9. As can be seen, the routine is rather straight-
forward without many logical decision points. It will operate in
a batch and/or time-shared mode.
PIF2 (Figure 5.10) is a subroutine that provides second order poly-
nomial interpolation in one variable. In this program, it is used
to determine the dispersion coefficients at a specified downwind
distance. A representative number of graph coordinate sets (approx-
imately 30 pairs of distance and dispersion coefficient points from
the graphs in Figures 5.7 and 5.8) are prestored in the program.
Then for any point downwind, PIF2 determines the dispersion coeffi-
cients cry andtrz.
Upon completion of the calculations, the program starts again if
additional data is furnished to it. Otherwise, the routine
terminates.
E. Incinerator Program
Computer programs may be created to thoroughly evaluate equipment for
the purpose of permit processing. Such a routine has been developed
and is being used by the State of Illinois, Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control. The procedure for utilizing
this program follows:
When an installation application for incinerators is received
by the Agency, it is assigned a unique number and reviewed
for completeness. If the application is complete, it is
sent to the data processing unit where certain information
(that data in the numbered boxes) is keypunched on 80 column
Hollerith cards. The application is then returned to the
Permit Section. An example of such an application with
-------
5.39
START
READ
DATA
INPUTS
SET UP TO
DETERMINE
STABILITY
COEFFICIENTS
CALCULATE
ROUND LEVEL
POLLUTANT
CONTRIBUTIONS
CALL
PIF2
\ P. 2
SET
STABILITY
COEFFICIENTS
EVALUATE
VIRTUAL
STACK HEIGHT
Figure 5.9. Diffusion program flowchart
-------
5.40
CSTART PIF2 J
INTERPOLATE
INTO
DEPEN. VAR.
LIST, USING TWO
HIGHEST POINTS
VAR.
PAST END OF
VARIABLE
LIST
NO ~
SELECT THIRD
POINT CLOSEST
TO THE
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE
Figure 5.10. Flow of PIF2 subroutine
-------
5.41
realistic but artificial data is shown in Figure 5.11.
The keypunched cards are sent to the Management Information
Division for processing on an IBM 370 Model 155 computer.
Figure 5.12 lists the incinerator evaluation program coded
in FORTRAN, while the results of the computer processing are
illustrated in Figure 5.13. The computer print-out is then
transmitted to the Permit Section.
An engineer in the Permit Section reviews the application for
inconsistencies and specific Agency requirements. The engi-
neer then reviews the computer print-out sheet. The review
of the computer print-out sheet consists of:
(a) Comparing the unique number on the application
and on the print-out.
(b) Ascertaining that the correct information was
keypunched (type of waste, heat content,
capacity, primary chamber volume, flame port
area, settling chamber area and the horizontal
distance traveled in the settling chamber).
(c) Review the computer printout for the following:
1. That the burn area is less than that
shown in blocks 21 or 22 of the appli-
cation.
2. That the heat release equals the value
given in blocks 23 of the application
and is less than 50,000 Btu per hour.
3. That the flame port velocity is less than
35 fps.
4. That the settling chamber velocity is less
than 9 fps.
5. That the residence time is greater than
.25 seconds.
6. That the stack area is less than or equal
to the value given in block 45 of the
application.
-------
5.42
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
2200 CHURCHILL KOAD
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706
RICHARD B. OCiLVIE. GOVERNOR
WILLIAM L. BLA3ER. DIRECTOR
INSTALL AT ION PERMIT APPLICATI!
FOR INCINERATORS
I. MA.ME OF OWNER:
John Doe Food Center
Anvwhere f Illinois
John Doe , Owner
1 ' INCORPORATED L M
x 1 vcs N0
. Store Waste
«. BTU/LB I 1 r 1 [ j
(ASF.REO, 6 5 0 0 *
10. MODEL NO.
VM-54
ILB./HR.J 2 65*
11 12 13 14
] 11879- „,.,„,„. „
-D-D-
8 5 "
" FOR OFFICE USE ONLr '
IN
DATE EXAMINED
Anywhere± Illinois
Sa. NAME OF Cl TY
Anywhere, Illinois
7. TYPE Y.ASTE; j p" —
0 •
1 I
fi. MAKE OF INCINERATOR
11. CLASS; 1 1 -1
3 _^J
C- D-
IS. CHARGING METHOD
X SIDE . TOP OTHER
17- % FXCFSS AIR:
5 0
19. INSTALLATION:
INDOORS OUTDOORS
PRIMARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER
ZO. VOLUME: , 1 1 • 1 1
M 7 8 ' 1
27 29 29 3O 3l ' ' '
1 1 " ° 4 SO FT
1 1*0 4 =0. FT.
_2_ 2 0 ' 8,_3. * , ,. > „
SECONDARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER
24. VOLUME:, p . ... . .
- / * / '
j 4 4 | CLJ. FT.
27. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF AIR | p
TRAVELED IN 9 L T TLIN G CH AM 8 Ef,: |
ni
33 34
1 • 1 q '/ 1
1 • |5 A |
ORT:
* 1 ft ^ SQ' FT.
, ... L_ ,o 1 JJ
1 1 1
I1 .1
fftim \i\t,Hwmt mm.vnfta
F PLEASE COM
• TT7I
0 1 4 JSQ. FT.
•miiinu.-nr-nnr»na*~ini>T-
PLFTF RFVFRSF Si
45 46 17 48
Figure 5.11. Installation permit application for incinerators (sheet 1 of 2]
(source: reference 21)
-------
5.43
AUXILIARY BURNERS
;f! TYPE OF FUEL.
29, NUMBER BURNERS:
I 1 1
nzi
i
~7|
| BTU./HM.
DRAFT
.NATURAL
OVERLAPS
1.-. BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE BR1DGEWALL
6
— INCHES
1 4 2 1 • 1 ,NCM
CAS CLEANING DEVICES
34. MAKE ft MODEL
?&. CAPACITY (SCFMl
45. EFFICIENCY %
1
•
•
»
4
»
35. FLOW RATE (GPU)
o
37. PRESSURE DROP INCHFS OP WATER
' a
39. COMPOSITION OF SOLUTION
STACK
L 1 3
". DISTANCE TO NEAREST 1 :
RESIDENCE. T C
?
0
•
•
FT.
FT.
-0 1 * 1J so „
*$• HEIGHT OF TALLEST OBSTRUCTION
Wl THIN t 60 FT.
L_ j L • ".
GENERAL INFORMATION
*e> COST OF INSTALLED 1NCIN ERA TOR
$3500 approx.
'"'• TAX RELIEF APPLIED FOR
OATE
YES
NO
47. COST OF CAS CLEANING DEVICES
49. TAX FORM NUMBER . p , 1 1 1 r— 1 1
J^J
.... -, , ^ . — •
NOTE- Applicant must submit two (2) of each: installation permit application for incinerators, dimensioned
drawings, plan elevation, sections as necessary, plot plan showing: location of incinerator, smoke
stack, breeching and auxiliary gas cleaning devices, if used.
Figure 5.11. Installation permit application for incinerators (sheet 2 of 2)
(source: reference 21)
-------
5.44
FORTRAN IV G LEVEL 20
MAIN
DATE = 71349
0001
0002
0003
0004
0005
0006
0007
0008
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
0015
0016
0017
0018
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
00 24
0025
0026
0027
0026
0029
0030
0031
0032
0033
0034
0035
0036
0037
0038
0039
0040
0041
0042
0043
0044
0045
0046
0047
0048
0049
C INCINERATOR PROGRAM
505 READ! I r 10 DA t H , THETA , P, Q».V1, D, Sf CIS, DEL
507 IF (DEL.EG.0.0) GO TO 509
101 FORMAT(F2.0,IF7.1,1F6.1,2F5.2,IF 6.1,3F6.2,1F9.0I
C THETA IS THE INCINERATOR CAPACITY
IF (A-5.) 3,5,5
3 P=1.0
0=0.0
C=THETA
GO TO 10
5 C=P*THETA+Q*THETA
HETRCL IS TOTAL HEAT RELEASE
10 HETREL=C*H
IFIA-2.)11,13,15
11 FACTOR* 13.*ALOG10JC)
GO Tn 30
13 FACTOR=10.*ALOGIOIC»
GO TO 30
15 IFIA-4.H7, 19,21
17 FACTOR= 3.*ALOG10(C)
GO TO 30
21 IF1A-6.I 91,91,11
91 FACTOR=13.*P*ALOG10/I 00. )
GO TO 30
41 IF (C-600.» 43,43,45
43 FACTOR =1 6. «•( 1 .*(C-500. J/100. J
GO TO 30
45 IF (C-700.) 47.4S.4S
47 FACTOR = 17.+( 1.*(C-6GO.)/100.>
GO TO 30
49 FACTOR =18.
Gfl T^ 30
30 BURN = C/FACTOR
C BURN IS REGO BURN AREA
hET= HETRFL/V1
C MET IS PRIMARY CHAMBER HEAT RELEASE
IF IA-1.) 51,53,55
51 POC = 0.179
GO TO 32
Figure 5.12.
Incinerator evaluation computer program (sheet 1 of 2)
(source: reference 22)
-------
5.45
0050 53 POC=0.l«-
0.051 GO TO 32
0^52 55 IF (A-3.(57,59,61
01)53 57 POC= O.C<39
0054 GO TO 32
0155 59 pnc= 0.082
0056 GO TO 32
0057 61 IF (A-5.J 63,65,67
0053 63 PnC=0.069
0059 GC TO 32
0060 65 pnC=P*0.I79*a*0.099
C161 GO T1"1 22
OC6? 67 PGC=P *0 .14+3*0.099
0063 32 GASVOL = C*POC
3064 VEL = GASVOL/D
C SETTLING CHAMBER VEL IS SCV
00^5 SCV= GASVCL/S
OC^6 T f'E =DIS /SCV
0067 SA = HETRFL/2.0E+6
0068 103 CONTINUE
JJ69 WRITE (3,105) DEL,C,A,ri,V1,0,S,0 IS,BURN,HET,VEL,SCV,TIME
0370 105 F-LMMAT (1H 1, 2 OX , 14HP E«M IT N0.= I , F 7. C,///20X.24HCAP AC I TV ,LB S . PE
Ik HR.= ,F6.1,///20X, 13HTYPE WASTE= ,F2.0,//X20X, 23HHEAT CONTEN
2T,3TU/LB.= , F7.1,///20X.30HPRIMARY CHAMBER VGL.,CU.FT.= , F6.1,
3///20X, 25HFLAME POKT AREA,SQ.FT.= , F6.2,///20X, 31HSETTLING CHA
4KBEK AREA,SO.FT.= ,F6.2,///20X, 22HHCRIZONTAL DIS.,FT.= ,F6.2,//
5/20X, 19H!3URN AREA,SQ.FT.= , IF 5.2,///20X, 43HPRIMARY CHAMBER HEA
6T RELEASE,BTU PER HR .= , F9 .2 ,///20X , 31HFLAME PORT VEL.,FT. PER S
7EC.= ,F5.2,///20X,37HSETTLING CHAMBER VEL.8FT. PER SEC.= , F5.2,
8///2CX,22hRESinE»JCE TIME,SEC.= ,F4.2)
0071 WRITE(3,107) SA
0072 107 FORMAT (1H1 ,// , 20X , 20HSTACK AREA,SQ.FT.= ,F5.2»
3073 GO TO 505
0074 509 CONTI NIJF
0075 STOP
0076 END
Figure 5.12. Incinerator evaluation computer program (sheet 2 of 2)
(source: reference 22)
-------
5.46
PERMIT NP.= I 71295.
CAPACITY.LBS. PER HR.= 265.0
TYPE WASTE= 0.
HFAT CONTENT,BTU/LB.= 6500.0
PRIMARY CHAMBER VOL.,CU.FT.= 78.0
FLAME PORT AREA,SQ.FT.= 1.65
SETTLING CHAMBER AREA,SQ.FT.= 11.04
HORIZONTAL OIS.,FT.= 1.54
BURN AKFA.S.J .FT.= 8,41
PRIMARY CHAMBER HEAT RELEASE,BTU PER HR.= 22C83.33
FLAME PORT VEL..FT. PER SEC.= 28.75
SETTLING CHAMBER VEL.8FT. PER S£C-= 4.30
RESIDENCE TIME,SEC.= 0.36
STACK AREA,SQ.FT.= 0.86
Figure 5.13. Computer print-out of incinerator evaluation
program (source: reference 23)
-------
5.47
REFERENCES
1. Stanley, W.J. and P. Loquercio. Air Pollution Manual of Coding. USDHEW,
PHS. The National Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati. 1968.
2. Danielson, J.A. (ed.)- Air Pollution Engineering Manual. USDHEW, PHS.
The National Center for Air Pollution Control and the Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District. PHS No. 999-AP-40. 1967.
3. McGraw, M.J. and R.L. Duprey. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
Factors (Preliminary Document). EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
April 1971.
4. Control of Gaseous Emissions — Institute of Air Pollution Training.
USDHEW, PHS, EHS.
5. Control of Particulate Emissions — Institute of Air Pollution Training.
USDHEW, PHS, EHS.
6. Danielson, op. cit.
7. Oglesby, S., Jr. and G.B. Nichols. A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator
Technology, Part I and Part II, NAPCA, Division of Process Controls
Engineering, Cincinnati. August 1970.
8. Billings, C.E. and J. Wilders. Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology,
Volume I. Fabric Filter Systems Study, Division of Process Control
Engineering. NAPCA, USDHEW, PHS. Consumers Protection and Environmental
Health Service. December 1970. Contract No. CPA 22-39-38.
9. McGraw, op. cit.
10, Danielson, op. cit.
11. Ibid.
12. Billings, op. cit.
13. Danielson, op. cit., p. 42-43.
14. Turner, D.B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. EPA,
Office'of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1970, p. 5.
15. Strom, G.H. Atmospheric Dispersion of Stack Effluents. In: Air
Pollution, Volume I, Stern, A.C. (ed.)« New York, Academic Press, 1968,
p. 249.
-------
5.48
16. Briggs, G.A. Plume Rise. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of
Technical Information. Document Number TID-25075. 1969.
17. Turner,op. cit., p. 8.
18. Ibid., p. 9.
19. Ibid., p. 6.
20. From Mr. K. J. Consklin, Manager, Permit Section, Division of Air
Pollution Control, Environmental Protection Agency, State of Illinois.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Digital Equipment Corporation, PDP-11, BASIC Programming Manual. Order
No. DEC-11-AJPB-D, Maynard, Massachusetts. 1970.
-------
Chapter 6
EXAMPLES OF PERMIT REVIEWS
I. INTRODUCTION
The following examples of engineering permit reviews have been constructed
to portray the techniques used by an air pollution control agency in
evaluating equipment and processes for permits to construct. These
evaluations provide the engineer with an approach to investigating the
design parameters of basic equipment and air pollution control systems
relative to their effect on the emission of air contaminants. The
quantitative results of these calculations provide the data for decision-
making in issuing or denying a permit to construct. Also included are
examples of specially designed forms for processing applications for
permits to construct and a prototype computer-assisted calculations package.
Typically the plan review will encompass the equipment and process
descriptions, engineering calculations, recommendations and conclusions.
These examples assume complete equipment descriptions, while using sum-
maries of these descriptions as data bases for computations. Recommendations
include any conditions attendant to the permit to construct, modification
suggested, design deficiencies and statements of approval or denial of
the permit to construct.
The sample problems are not intended to be a substitute for training and ex-
perience. They are constructed to illustrate the fundamental approach to
determining volumes of gases produced or handled, contaminant loading and air
pollution control methods and equipment. These examples stress the concepts
for rapid assessment of potential air contaminant emissions from a group of
processes and equipment often encountered in plan review by an air pollution
control agency.
-------
6.2
II. SAMPLE PROBLEMS
A. Sulfuric Acid Plant
1. Equipment and Process Description.
A 700 ton/day (100% sulfuric acid basis) dual absorption contact
sulfuric acid plant is to be constructed. It will operate on
molten bright sulfur. It is to be equipped with a tubular type
fiber glass mist eliminator. A schematic flow diagram based upon
flow sheets supplied by the applicant is shown below (Figure 6.1).
(Note: Flow rates, equipment sizes, pump and blower capacity,
heat exchanger ratings, catalyst volume, temperatures, design
criteria and any other information which is determined to be
necessary to evaluate the pollution potential of the proposed
plant should be supplied by the applicant or requested.)
Specifications for the proposed plant and a brief process description:
follows:
Feed - molten bright sulfur fed at a rate of 9.5 ton/hr. Plant
to be operated 24 hours/day.
Air - Combustion air will be introduced by blower through a drying
tower supplied by 93% acid to dry the air. Sufficient air will
be supplied to result in feed mixture of 10% SO-, 11% 0 , and
79% N , by volume, going to the converter.
Converter - A five stage converter is to be used with primary absorpt
of SO- occurring after the third stage. The final two stages are fee
with the discharge gas from the primary absorption tower. Heat exchs
ers are to be used so that feed gases will enter each converter stage
at 820 F. Catalyst volume will be 175 liters per ton per day of acid
production.
-------
Sulfur Furnace
Steam
Sulfur
93% Acid
30,175 SCFM
Tail
Gas
Heat Exchanger
Economizer
Secondary
Absorption
Tower
Product
Acid
700 ton/day
(100% Acid
Equivalent)
98% Acid
Figure 6.1. Schematic flow diagram dual absorption contact H SO.
(source: reference 2)
CO
-------
6.4
Absorption Towers - The primary tower absorbs SO, from the process
gas stream after the first three stages of conversion. Converter
gases are cooled to 450° F. before entering the tower with 98% acid
used as the absorbing medium. The secondary tower takes the
gases from the third converter stage. SO^ emissions must meet
the standard at this point. Tail gas temperature will be 170° F.
2
Mist Eliminator - Tubular type, fiber glass, 2000 ft face area,
designed for AP of 8 in. H20. To be 100% efficient3 on particles
>3.0juand 95% efficient on particles ^.3.0/A .
2. Evaluation and Calculations
Standards - This plant must meet federal emission standards for
sulfuric acid plants as set forth in the "Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources," Subpart H, Part 60, Subchapter C,
Chapter I, Title 40 and published in Volume 36, No. 247, Part II
of the Federal Register for December 23, 1971. These are:
Sulfur dioxide; 4.0 Ib S0~ per ton of acid produced (as
100% H2SO ).
Acid Mist: 0.15 Ib acid mist per ton of acid produced (both
expressed as 100% H_SO,). Also, visible emissions must not
exceed 10 percent opacity.
Flow Calculations: Because the process flow rate is important
in terms of equipment capacity, and because emissions are
determined as concentrations during testing (therefore requiring
knowledge of flow rate to calculate mass emissions per ton of
product), a calculation of process flow is made.
a. S + °2~~^SOo (sulfur furnace reaction) using air for
combustion in an air/sulfur ratio necessary to result
in a 10% S0« .feed stream to the converter the above
equation is expanded.
-------
6.5
b. 10 S + 21 0 + 79 N. - ^10 S0 + 11 0 + 79
or
10 mols of sulfur result in 100 mols of feed gas to the
converter.
c. Volume of feed gas =
100 lb mol feed x 359 scf x lb mol S x 32 lb S x
10 lb mol S lb mol 32 lb S 98 lb H SO,
2 4
2000 lb = 73,000 scf feed gas
ton ton H SO produced
d. Volumetric rate of feed gas =
73000 scf feed gas 700 tons H SO,
X &, T- X
ton H SO, day
day = 35.500 scf
24 x 60 min min
e. Volumetric rate of tail gas. Assuming that all S02 is
converted to SO- and forms ELSO,, 85% of the feed gas
is 0? and N? which passes through the process to form
the bulk of the tail gas. (See overall equation for con-
version and absorption processes below, = )
10 S02 + 11 02 + 10 H20 + 79 N2 *.
10 H2S04 + 6 02 + 79 N2
Therefore -
(1) Volume of tail gas = .85 x 73,000
= 62,050 scf tail gas
ton H SO, produced
(2) Volumetric rate of tail gas = .85 x 35,500
= 30.175 scf tail gas
min
-------
6.6
Allowable concentration of SO in tail gas :
standard is 4.0 Ib . SO per ton of 100% I^SO
this figure supplied to the flow data above-
The emission
produced. Using
Allowable S0_ conc.=
4
.0
ton
359
Ib
H2
S°2 x
SO
scf
4
so2
ton H
62
x
2
,050
io6
=
SO
4
scf
360
tail
ppm
gas
Ib mol SO
64 Ib S0
«
Ib mol SO
Allowable concentration of acid mist in tail gas : The emission
standard is 0.15 Ib acid mist per ton of 100% H-SO, produced.
Using this figure applied to the flow data, the allowable
acid mist concentration is-
0.151b acid mist ton H0SO.
_ x _ 2 4
ton H2S04
x
62,050 scf tail gas
454,000 mg = 1.0 mg acid mist
Ib scf tail gas
Conversion of S02 to SO - This conversion takes place over
a catalyst in several stages. The temperature, rate of flow,
and volume and activity of the catalyst are all important
in determining the actual final percent conversion. In order
to meet the standard for SO^ the conversion must be very close
to 99-7%. The conversion reaction is as follows:
S0 + 1/2 0 —-- S0
-------
6.7
the equilibrium constant for the reaction is:
(SO,)
K =
(sop (02)°*5
In determining the predicted conversion, a plot of K vs. temp.
at the initial S02 concentration is made (in this case 10%). A
graphical solution for the percent conversion after the first
three stages may be obtained by plotting operating lines based
upon the initial temperature and adiabatic temperature increase
of the process gases. The first and second stage and the second
and third stage operating lines are connected by horizontal lines
determined by the amount of interstage cooling. Essentially all
the SO,, formed in the first three stages is removed in the primary
absorber. Thus for the final stage a completely new set of
conditions exist. The ()„ to SO. ratio is substantially increased
and the previously formed SO. has been removed. It is assumed
here that equilibrium conditions are attained after each stage. In
the case given, the overall conversion should be very close to the
99.7% required. (Note: the approach rather than the actual
calculations are given for this part of the example because of the
substantial extra space and detail required. Equilibria and
adiabatic temperature increase data for a variety of starting
4
conditions are available in the literature.
provided, additionally, from the applicant.)
conditions are available in the literature. This data should be
Mist Eliminator Performance - A high efficiency tubular type
—— — ^
fiber glass mist eliminator of 2000 ft face area is specified.
The uncontrolled mist emissions from a plant such as being
proposed might easily be 3.0 Ib/ton acid produced.
-------
6.8
Thus the overall efficiency required is:
3.00 - 0.15 x 100 = 95%
3.00
The specifications for the mist eliminator call for an efficiencj
of not less than 95% on particles < 3.0/i. Since 70% (by weight)
of the mist particles in a plant such as proposed are expected
to be>3.0;u, the predicted efficiency can be calculated as
follows:
(a) wt. particle > 3. OAI = .7 x 3.0 = 2.1 Ib/ton acid
(b) wt. particle<3.Op = 3.0 - 2.1= 0.9 Ib/ton acid
(c) wt. particle > 3.0/u, removed = 1.00 x 2.1 = 2.1 Ib/ton
(d) wt. par tide < 3. Op removed = 0.95 x 0.9 = .85 Ib/ton
(e) total wt. mist particles removed = 2.1 + .85 = 2.95 lb/1
(f) wt. mist particles discharged = 3.0 - 2.95
= 0.05 Ib/ton acid produo
This is well within standard of 0.15 Ib/ton.
The effective face area of the mist eliminator required is set
by the requirement that face velocity not exceed 25 ft/min for
this type eliminator. Since tail gas flow rate was calculated
to be 30,175 scfm, and tail gas temperature is 170° F., flow
rate at stack conditions is:
30,175 scf x 630° = 38,720 cfm
min 492°
Face velocity = 38,720 ft3 x 1
2
min 2000 ft eliminator ar
= 19.4 ft/min
This is below the 25 ft/min maximum.
-------
6.9
3. Summary and Conclusions
It would appear that this proposed sulfuric acid plant could
meet the new federal standards. Several features would have
to be examined more carefully in an actual situation: (1) The
design criteria for the converter should be examined carefully
to see what percent approach to equilibria was used in the cal-
culations, and whether the flow rate was within the accepted
upper limit. Finally the possibilities for increased production
should be examined. (2) The possibility of a slight enlargement
of the mist eliminator should be explored so as to give an in-
creased safety factor.
The extent of the design check to be made is always subject to
judgment of the engineer. Those suggested in this example seem
reasonable. It would not appear to be justified, for example, to
recheck all the heat exchange calculations.
-------
6.10
B. Coal Fired Boiler with an Electrostatic Precipitator
1. Equipment and Process Description.
A permit to construct is requested for an electrostatic precipitator
for a pulverized coal steam generator for power plant service.
The following data summarizes the description of the basic
equipment.
a. A corner fired, dry bottom steam generating unit rated at
940,000 pounds per hour of steam @ 2565 psig and 1050° F.
monotube type (no steam drum) and water cooled.
b. Fuel - 55 tons/hr of pulverized coal (70% passing 200 mesh)
ultimate analysis (as fired), heating value of 13,000 Btu/lb
c
H2
Q
2
N2
S
H20
Ash
Total
72.8%
4.8
6.2
1.5
1.8
3.5
9.4
100.%
c. Burners - 16 tangential corner mounted burners with automatic
controls for air fuel ratios based on load conditions.
Two forced draft fans @ 185,000 cfm
Two induced draft fans @ 275,000 cfm (300° F.)
d. The schematic diagram shown in Figure 6.2 is a representation of
the system indicating the fuel preparation equipment and the
gas flow.
-------
Pulverizer Exhauster
55 Tons
Furnace
Economizer
Hr
rOr
Preheat Combustion Air
275,000 CFM
and 300°F.
Each
FD Fans
185,000 CFM
Each
*• 300' Stack
Figure 6.2. Schematic of Exhaust System and Electrostatic
Precipitator Serving a Coal Fired Boiler
-------
6.12
2. Evaluation and Calculations
a. Determine volume of gases entering precipitator (Air @ 60% RH
Q
and 80° F. Dry Bulb Temp.)
c +
H +
S +
Ultimate
Analysis
Ib s p er
100 Ibs of
Fuel (As
Fired)
C 72.8
H2 4.8
02 6.2
N2 1.5
S 1.8
H20 3.5
Ash 9.4
Molecular
Weight
12
2
32
28
32
18
-
Deduct 02 in Fuel (Air
°2 • C°2
1/2 0 *- HO Basic Reactions
r\ - nr\
°2 S°2
Moles
of Oxygen
6.07
1.20
-
-
0.06
-
6.2
Tot
*
Multiplier Constant
for 100%
Theoretical
Combustion
Moles of Air/
Mole of Combustible
4.76
4.76
-
-
4.76
-
Total
x 4.76)
Moles of Air
Required for
100% Combustion
28.89
5.71
0.27
34.87
- .92
al Moles of Air Required = 33.95
*100 Moles of Air contain approximately 21 Moles of 0_ + 79 Moles of
N0 or 01 = 4.76 Moles of Air per Mole of 0,
2. ZJ. ^
-------
6.13
Products of Combustion @ 10% Excess Air
Moles/100
Constituant Ib. Fuel
C02 - 1 Mole of CO per Mole of C =6.07
H90 - from combustion of HO in fuel
^ £~
(H + 1/2 02 — H20) = 2.38
Moisture in Air @ 10% Excess Air
1.10 x 33.90 = 37.3 Moles of Air
37.3 Moles of
.. 0.021 Moles H.O _ 7fi
Air x 2 = 0.78
Mole of Air
Moisture in Fuel ^ = 0.19
-Lo
SC- - 1 Mole of S02 per Mole of S =0.06
N - 37.3 x 0.79 (NZ in Air) = 29.47
0 (excess) - 0.10 x 33.95 x 0.21 (0 in Air) = .72
2 2
Total Wet Basis 39.67
Total Volume of Gases:
39.67 Moles Fuel x 55 tons x 2000 Ib x 1 hr =728 moles
100 Ib hr ton 60 min min
728 moles x 379 ft3 = 275,900 cfm @ 60° F.
min Ib mol
Induced Draft Fans operating at 300° F.
2 @ 275,000 cfm or 550,000 cfm total at 300° F.
-------
6.14
Products of combustion @ 10% excess air = = 275,900 cfm
Leakage into furnace, boiler, etc. = 10% = 27,590
Leakage at air heater =2% = 5,520
309,010
309,010 x (460 + 300) = 452,000 cfm @ 300° F.
This is a reasonable comparison with
the I.D. Fan total of 550,000 cfm
@ 300° F.
b. Air pollution control system.
The following data summarizes the description of the air pollution
control system.
Plate type precipitator (horizontal flow type) with dust collection
hopper, rotary valves and screw conveyor.
2
Plate area 170,000 ft
Corona power 85 kw
Bus sections 22
The rappers are vibrator type for the discharge plates and impact
type on collector plates.
The total pressure drop for the system has been estimated by the
use of a 1/16 to 1 scale model and is reflected in the selection
of the fans. The design includes gas diffusion plates for equal
flow distribution with a design velocity of 4.5 ft/sec.
-------
6.15
c. System check.
Estimated Dust Loading - 17A = Participate emissions, Ib/ton of coal burned
A = Percent ash in coal
17 x 9,4 (% ash) x 55 ton/hr = 8790 Ib/hr
Permissible Standard =0.1 —•
9
million Btu
0.1
x 55
ton
hr
x 2 x 103
io6
Ib
ton
Btu
x 13
x 10
3
Btu
Ib
= 143
Ib
hr
Required System Efficiency
8790 - 143
8790
x 100% = 98.4%
Since this is a new installation and no actual test data are avai-
lable, the resistivity of the fly ash must be an estimate. There
is, however, an alternative design approach based on fuel compositions."
Figure 6.3 represents the relationship among precipitator collection
efficiency, sulfur content of fuel in % and collection plate area/1000
acfm. (Based on ASME Performance Test Code PTC-27, 1957. Additional
investigation will be necessary before comparable data, compatible to
EPA testing standards, can be produced.)
At 98.4% efficiency and 1.8% sulfur in the coal the collection
2
plate area is 25° ft
1000 cfm
Precipitator Rate Parameter W = 0.34 —^-, from Figure 6.4
S G C
(apparent migration velocity)
This may be checked by use of Deutsch-Anderson equation.
t| = 1 - exp (-A w) A = area of collecting surface
Vg
Vg= gas flow rate
W = Vg •, -IUU
A 100 -TI
-------
6.16
99.9
.2
.2
«M
&
C
.2
t>
0)
o
U
99.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
100 200
Area/1000 cfm
300
400
Figure 6.3.
Relationship between collection efficiency and collecting
surface area to gas flow ratio for various coal sulfur
contents. (source: reference 11)
-------
6.17
•t
»" °;6e "
V
6
rt
0 49 -
CO
(U
v
rt
K
o
.»-•
*rf
rt
•- 0.33
a>
u
a,
0.16
20
Ramsdell
0 Rarrott
XSHI
Sulfur Content, °f0
Figure 6.4. Variation in precipitation rate parameter
with sulfur content of the coal. (source:
reference 12)
-------
6.18
w = 550 x 10 ln 100 w = precipitation rate paramete1
170 x 103 100 - 98.4 n m efficiency> %
13 A ft'
w min. exp = base of natural logarithms
or v = .22 ^-^ Acceptable range of difference.
60 sec
WelttS
Corona Power (Figure 6.5 , electrical energization) 135 ^QQQ cfm
135 , • f x 550,000 cfm = 74.2 kw
1000 cfm '
No. of bus sections from Figure 6.6
4 bus sections/100,000 cfm are required
on 4 x 5.5 = 22
3. Summary and Conclusions
The calculations and summarized data support the efficiency claims
of 99+%. The system is automatically controlled and includes
individual electrical sets, spark rate indicators, rapping cycle
controls and indicators, outlet capacity indicators and line
voltage indicators. The issuance of a permit to construct is
recommended under the following conditions:
1. Sampling ports be provided upstream and downstream of
the precipitator.
2. Source test conducted upon completion of "shakedown" period.
3. Changes in fuel be accompanied by source test to determine
effect on precipitator efficiency.
The use of coal with a sulfur content of 1.8% will result in the
emission of oxides of sulfur in excess of projected standards. The
state-of-the-art of SCL recovery from stack gases may reach the point
-------
6.19
25 50 75 100
Corona Power, watts/1000 cfm
125
150
'Figure 6.5. Relationship between collection efficiency and
corona power for fly ash precipitators (test result),
(source: reference 13)
-------
6.20
99.9
99.-0
8
•rl
O
iH
m
*4.
H
g
-H
4->
O
01
o90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
/ Ramsdell 300°F
1. 3% sulfur
o SPI Data Points
12345
Number of Bus Sections per 100, 000 cfnri
Figure 6.6. Variation in efficiency with degree of sectionalizatioi
(source: reference 14)
-------
6.21
where these air pollution control systems will become available.
At that time a reappraisal of the total air pollution system will
be necessary.
Upon determination of the extent of emissions of oxides of nitrogen
it may be necessary to modify burner and airport locations which
could have an effect upon the volume of gases handled by the air
pollution control system and may affect the precipitator. Any
changes resulting from adjustments or modifications to the system
must be reported to the agency.
-------
6.22
C. Lithograph Oven Venting to an Afterburner
1. Equipment and Process Description.
A permit to construct has been requested for an afterburner (direct
flame incinerator) serving a lithograph drying oven. Metal sheets
are coated with paint containing a mixture 36/36/38, aliphatic, xylol
& MIK solvent. The drying rate is 90, 28" x 35" sheets per minute.
The solvent usage is derived from the rate of application @ 11.72
2
mg/in coverage. The system schematic is shown in Figure 6.7. The
oven vents 10,000 scfm of gas at 350° F. to a heat exchanger where
the temperature is raised to 825° F. The exhaust gases from the
incinerator which are at 1400° F., are used to preheat the incoming
oven gases in the heat exchanger.
The incinerator has the following design features:
3
Fuel - 6300 ft natural gas
hr
Throat Section - 6' diameter
Combustion Chamber - 7.75' diameter
Length of Combustion Chamber - 9'
2. Evaluation and Calculations
a. Solvent usage rate
11.72SS- x 980 ±ni_ x 90 Sheets
in sheet min ,,
. . = 2 29
'
453,600
16
Heating value of the solvent is 18,370 r-r"-.
Ib
Safe operating level is less than 25% of the Lower Explosive
Limit which is ' nnn — (as hexane) ,17
J_ W j L/UU S CHii
-------
6.23
90
Sheets
Min
6300
Ft"
Hr
Nat. Gas
Oven
350°F.
825°F.
1
r
Incin-
eratoi
1400°F. ^
<>
tor
925°F.
Fan
10,000 scfm
350°F.
Figure 6.7. Schematic Flow Diagram of Air Pollution
Control System for Lithograph Oven
-------
6.24
Solvent usage of 2.29 •==— is approximately 8.7% (based on
26.4 TTTTT as the L.E.L.) and is in the safe range.
SCF
b . Heat Balance
Ib of air -,,„ Ib
10,000 scfm x 0.076 - 5 - = 760
Heat required to raise temperature of air to 1400° F. ,
Q = W CpAt
= 760 (0.251*) (1400 - 825) x 60 = 6,580,000—
Heat available from solvent @ 97% evaporation
2.29^V x 60 ^ x 18,370 |^ x 0.97 = 2,440,000
gal hr ' Ib ' * hr
A Heat = 4,140,000
Fuel required
Heat available from natural gas @ 1400° F. = 668.0 Btu
ft3
, -. __6 Btu
4.14 x 10 T — „
hr ft3
- — ^j = 6200 ^- natural gas required - ok
6.68 x 10
^ 63Qo ft/hr supplied
c. Products of combustion
Theoretical air 11.45 -^ natural gas
ftJ
3 3
11.45 x 6300 - = 1200 cfm
60'liB.
hr
Specific heat of air at constant pressure, Btu/lb.°F.
-------
6.25
Total volume of gases
(.0,000 a! + 1200 ^^gtJ . 39,300 cfl. I 1400' F
Incinerator mixing section (throat) = 6' diameter
3
39,300 it-
Throat velocity = — = 23.1 ft
sec
60 ^ ^
mm 4
18
Acceptable range 15 to 25 ——
sec
Combustion chamber = 7.75' diameter
39,300
Velocity = = 13.9
60 x ir(7.75)2 " sec
ft19
Acceptable range 10 to 15
Length of combustion chamber = 9 ft
9 ft
13.9
9 ft
Residence time = - T— = 0.65 sec
sec
Acceptable range =0.3 sec.™
3. Summary and Conclusions
The afterburner design is satisfactory for the conditions of 825° F.
inlet temperature and 10,000 scfm. Since this operation is contin-
uous, good results should be obtained during steady state. During
start-up it will be necessary to operate the afterburner until the
heat exchanger reaches the steady state conditions.
The system is well designed and it is recommended that a permit to
construct be authorized.
-------
6.26
D. Municipal Incinerator with an Electrostatic Precipitator
1. Equipment and Process Description
A permit to construct is requested for an electrostatic
precipitator for the reduction of particulate emissions
from the effluent of an existing municipal incinerator.
The following test data are available from the operation of
the incinerator:
Refractory type incinerator with a traveling grate
, . . i,-o tons . ,- 21
burning 15.8 —r— of refuse.
Exit temperature of gases 1673° F.
CO % by volume 7.3
Underfired air, —r—• of grate 72.6
ft
Particulate emissions -,— 231
hr
Exhaust gas volume acfm 170,000
The following design data is taken from the precipitator
description and summarizes the air pollution control system.
Plate type design (horizontal flow) preceded by a water spray
chamber to reduce exhaust gas temperature to 600° F. Dust
is collected in bottom hoppers using a rotary valve and screw
conveyor to remove captured material.
Plate area 19,000 ft2
Gas velocity ' " ft
Gas temperature 600° F.
No. of gas passages 27
Power 9000 Watts
Vibration type rappers
-------
6.27
The flow of gases in the precipitator is influenced by perforated
plates at the inlet which serve as straighteners. A model was
constructed to more closely estimate pressure drop and flow
patterns through the system for a velocil
system schematic is shown in Figure 6.8.
patterns through the system for a velocity of 4.5 . The
2. Evaluation and Calculations
Gases are to be cooled from 1673° F. to 600° P. by water
injection into the gas stream.
a. Heat in products of combustion
Enthalpy of air @ 1673° F.22 = 417.0 ^
Enthalpy of air @ 600° F. = 131.6
Heat reduction required
Btu
by evaporation = 285.4 ~^~
b. Weight of flue gas = 170,000 |^ x 0.018 ^ (@ 1673° F.)23
= 3>08°
c. Total heat to be absorbed = 285.4 jj— x 3,080
"R t*ii
= 890>000 min"
Q = h - h Q = heat absorbed Btu/lb
§ f h = heat content of saturated vapor
g
hf = heat content of saturated liquid
Q = h (600°F and 14.7 psig) - - hf (60°F.)
O
-------
6.28
15.8 Tons/hr
Refuse
100 GPM Water
@ 60°F.
t
Stack
\
Incinerator
Exhaust
170,000
cfm @
1673°F.
600°F.
117,500
cfm
ESP
Fan 117,500 cfm
@ 600°F.
Figure 6.8. Flow Schematic for an Exhaust System with Electrostatic
Precipitator Serving a Municipal Incinerator
-------
6.29
Q = 1165.5 - 28.06
= 1137.44
Btu
Water rate = 890,000 min
1137.44
0.1198 = 92>5 gpm
d. Volume of stack gases at 600° F.
Flue gas + water vapor = total volume of gases
IT <"« - 33.°°°
Total volume= 117,500 cfm @ 600° F.
From fan multi-rating tables,fan selected is OK at
117,500 cfm @ 600° F.
e. Precipitator collecting plate area
The agency's performance standards requires 98% efficiency for
control of particulates from municipal incinerators.
Precipitation rate w = 13 -£m- =25.4 -7- (Figure 6.9)
r sec mm
using Deutch-Anderson equation
r\ = 1 - exp =— w TI = 98%
v Vg
100
" w 100 -n
117,500 _ 100
A = 25.4 ln T
2
A = 18,100 ft of collection plate
(NOTE: Valid data for the design of electrostatic precipitators for municipal 2
incinerator service is still evolving. Actual practice has shown 150 to 160 ft /
1000 acfm is required for 95% collection efficiency and as high as 180 ft /.1000
acfm to achieve 98% efficiency.)
-------
6.30
14
o
1 12
o
, 10
0>
8
9)
* 6
I «
o
v
0
O European
O U.S.
200
300
400
500
600
Gas Temperature, °F
FIGURE 6.9. Variation in precipitation rate parameter with gas
temperature for municipal incinerator precipitators,
(source: reference 24)
-------
6.31
f. Power = IQQO gjT (Figure 6.10)
= 75 x 117.5 = 8900 watts
g. Bulk resistivity - between 107 and 1010 (ohm-cm measured)
This is in the optimum range of 107 and 2 x 1010 for efficient oper-
ation of an electrostatic precipitator serving a municipal-incinerator.
3. Summary and Conclusions
There is little published data available on electrical precipitator
design.parameters for municipal incinerators. From the data
available the principal design features are satisfactory including
the resistivity of the particulates. It is recommended that a
permit to construct be issued for the precipitator based upon
the following conditions:
a. Sampling ports be provided upstream and downstream of
the precipitator.
b. A source test conducted upon completion of construction
and test runs.
c. A recording instrument be provided at the cooling chamber
to indicate the time the safety bypass is open and
duration of the pass time.
The air pollution control system is provided with automatic
controls including individual electrical sets, spark rate
indicators, rapping, cycle controls and indicators, outlet
capacity indicators, and line voltage indicators.
The electrostatic precipitator will provide adequate particulate
emission control. It may be necessary, in the future, to review
this permit relative to new standards for emission of hydrogen
chloride, metals and others.
-------
6.32
99.9
99
fr
B
§
•43
y
-------
6.33
E. Baghouse for a Cement Kiln
1. Equipment and Process Description
A permit to construct is requested for a baghouse to serve a dry
process portland cement rotary kiln (clinker cooler, raw materials
handling and preparation, and bulk handling of finished materials
are all individual permit units and receive separate consider-
ation) . The following data is supplied from the equipment and
process description:
a. Gas fired dry process kiln 15' in diameter and 380' long
(no preheat)
Process weight 9,580 ^ x 600 ==-f fired
6 ' day bbl
1 = 25xl04^
24 hr_ - — — hr
day
Measured gas flow @ 500° F. = 300,000 cfm
STTcLlriS
Measured particulate load =9.69 -=—^— , stack conditions
Or
300,000 cfmx 9.69 x 60
= 24S800 -
7000 grains
Ib
b. Air pollution control system
The design of the exhaust system and feed inlet are close fitting
so that there will be minimum air leakage. A 20% safety margin
has been added to the air handling system above the theoreti-
cal calculations. (See schematic Figure 6.11)
Fan - 360,000 cfm @ 500° F. and 6" we, static pressure
(300,000 cfm measured plus 20% factor of safety).
-------
6.34
250,000 #/hr
Feed
Baghouse
Oil
Firing
To Clinker Cooler
Cement Kiln
3 x 10"
cfm @
500°F.
\
LJStack
Fan 360,000 cf
@ 500°F.
Figure 6.11.
Flow Schematic of an Exhaust System
and Baghouse for a Cement Kiln
-------
6.35
Baghouse - tubular glass bags with an equivalent area of
180,000 sq. ft; reverse flow with flexural
collapse.
3
Air to cloth ratio 360>00° Mn" =2:1
180,000 ft2
Pressure drop through baghouse is 4" to 5" we. (Note: The
calculation of pressure drop through the system, fan capa-
city, fan speed and motor horsepower are based upon the
total flow of gases through the system using the relation-
ship TOTAL PRESSURE = VELOCITY PRESSURE + STATIC PRESSURE.
The fan must be checked against the manufacturers multi-
rating tables. In the case where the gas temperature is
above standard , additional corrections must be made.
27
"Fan Engineering" and the "Air Pollution Engineering
9 Q
Manual" offer examples of these calculations. The
sample calculations for the grey iron cupola and baghouse
illustrate this method.)
29
2. Evaluation and Calculations for the dust control system
a. Filter media:
The filter media is glass cloth which displays good heat re-
sistance at 500° F. and surges to 600° F. Resistance to
alkalies is acceptable for this service and mechanical
strength characteristics will give average bag life.
b. Bag cleaning:
Reverse flow cleaning is recommended for use in this service
primarily because it supports high collection efficiency
and displays good bag cleaning uniformity.
c. Filter ratio:
The filter ratio of 2:1 (or 2 -4-) is attained at the
mm
maximum flow rate. The system pressure drop will be at
-------
6.36
a minimum when the bags are clean resulting in the
highest volume of gas flow. With reverse flow cleaning
the pressure drop will be fairly constant.
d. Baghouse operation:
Nominal operating temperature for the baghouse is 500° F.
which is well above the dew point for most conditions. A'
recommended operational procedure is for the baghouse to
be preheated to 250° F. before charging begins. This can
be accomplished by either the kiln burners or by
separate heaters.
Bag attrition is usually high in this type of service,
necessitating a rigid inspection and replacement plan.
e. Instrumentation:
Continuous recording instruments for flow rates, gas
temperature, baghouse temperature and dew point levels
have been provided.
f. Dust disposal:
Since very large quantities of dust will be collected, a
closed dust removal system has been provided. The collec-
tion bottom hoppers have rotary valves and a screw
conveyor. The enclosed dust handling system is vented
to a baghouse (separate permit unit).
g. Required efficiency:
Process weight = 250'000 hr" = 125
__
2,000 ±2-
ton
Allowable emission rate = 0.30 -=^— of feed
ton
= 0.30 x 125 ~
hr
=37.5^
hr
-------
6.37
Efficiency = 24>^8QQ37-5 x 100 = 99.9%
3. Summary and Conclusions
The approval for a permit to construct this equipment is not
recommended at this time. The extremely high efficiency required
to meet the agency standards may necessitate the addition of a
precollector upstream of the baghouse or additional bag area to
reduce the filter ratio to 1.5:1 or even 1:1. It is also
recommended that the duct work between the dryer and the bag-
house be insulated to reduce moisture build up. The system
design provides adequate process control instrumentation to
monitor the critical exhaust gas characteristics.
If a mechanical collector is to be used ahead of the baghouse,
further consideration must be given to the selection of a fan
motor since an additional pressure drop will be added to the
system.
-------
6.38
F- Asphaltic Concrete Batching Plant Served by a Multiple-Cyclone and
Baghouse
1. Equipment and Process Description
A permit to construct is requested for an air pollution control
system for an oil fired asphaltic concrete batching plant consist!
of an exhaust system with a cyclone collector and a baghouse.
The following data, taken from the application, summarizes the
basic equipment:
100 -— asphaltic concrete batching plant
Mix with highest percentage of fines that will be processed
by this equipment is a Wearing Surface Mix with the following
specification
50% Passing #8
30% " #30
7% " #50
8% " #200
5% Asphaltic cement
100%
Average moisture content of aggregate = 6%.
The dryer is oil fired with a fuel rate of 3.3 gpm, PS #300
oil and has automatic burner controls.
The following data summarizes the air pollution control system.
Fan rated at 30,000 cfm @ 350° F. and 11" we, static pressure
Cyclone collector - "high efficiency" collector
Pressure drop = 5" we
2 -D
Baghouse - 4500 ft bag area, Nomex cloth with pulse cleanini
Pressure drop = 4" we
-------
6.39
The system schematic is shown in Figure 6.12.
2. Evaluation and Calculations
Dryer exhaust gases
Products of combustion from 3.3 gpm, PS #300 oil at 100%
31
excess air
367. 8
— x 3.3 r x 8.0 r
oil mm gal
= 9,700 scfm
^O from aggregate
100 ^ns
hr
ton
H2°
lb agg.
,Q
^ = 200 _
mm mm
hr
32
a. Fugitive dust
3000 scfm (actual volume of air for capture of fugitive dust
will be calculated from volume of air displaced in screening,
hot aggregate storage and mixing according to the relationship
JE2S1
hr
2000
50
mins
hr
X
100
.
Ibs aggregate min
ft3
displaced and adding
10% for factor of safety. To this is added the air requirement
for materials handling equipment based upon minimum indraft
at all openings of 200
b. Total volume of gases (treated as air)
Products of combustion - -9,700 scfm
lb
/200
H20
\18
lb
lb mol
Fugitive dust
lb mol- 4,230
16,930 scfm
-------
\
Rotary
Drier 100
tons/hr
3.3 GPM #3001\
oil
Cold Elevator
A
!
Hot
Ele
* ! ^T1! |
^^J v \
- Cyclone .
Screen .prn '
Hot Agg. !
R1.TI
Mixer
Discharge
vator
Stack
Baghouse
AP - 4 we
-CTL
^~~~ Fan
30,000
Product Flow
APC System
Figure 6.12.
Flow Schematic of Exhaust System for a Baghouse
Serving a Hot Asphalt Plant
-------
6.41
Add 10% to total for leakage, etc.
25,900
2,590
28,490 cfm @ 350°F.
c. Cyclone
The cyclone will be considered only as a precleaner to reduce
the large particle size grainloading. Anticipated dust load
2 IT 3. ins
is 60 &—7— with a high percentage of dust particles in the
O Q
10M to 5^ range. A conservative estimate of cyclone
34
efficiency for this type of loading is 80%. Grainloading
to the baghouse is then
60 - .8(60) = 12 , with the highest percentage of dust
less than
Anticipated dust loading at the baghouse will then be
12 §
-I r, mr\ c scfm ,_ min . nn _ Ib
18,620 scfm x x 60 -r— = 1,915 7—
7000
1,1. 35
d. Baghouse
2 R
4500 ft Womex with pulse jet cleaning filter ratio =
30,000 cfm = 6 66>1
4500 ft3
The pulse jet method of cleaning bags allows for a relatively
high filter ratio with high collection efficiency for submicroh
particles. Nomex is recommended for service up to 450°F.
-------
6.42
Since the baghouse operating temperature is 350° F., moisture
precipitation is not anticipated. To insure proper operating
conditions in the baghouse, the inlet ducts have been insulated
and during startups the burners are used prior to charging to
bring the system up to operating temperature.
e. Allowable loss
Process weight =100 ~S§. x 2000 -i— = 200,000
Allowable Ioss36= 36.11
Baghouse eff . required = - ilfTc- - ~ - x
f. Exhaust system
TP = VP + SP TP = Total pressure
VP = Velocity pressure
SP = Static pressure
Assume VP of 0.5" we and 1.0" we for SP of system
excluding cyclone and baghouse.
TP = 0.5 + 1.0 + 5.0 + 4.0 = 10.5" we
SP = 1.0 + 5,0 + 4.0 = 10.0" we
Fan = 30,000 cfm @ 350° F. and 11" we static pressure.
(Check with fan multi-ratings tables, adjust for
350° F.)
3. Summary and Conclusions
The exhaust system has sufficient capacity to provide good indraft
at all openings and to vent the dryer with 100% excess air for com-
bustion and 6% water vapor in the aggregate. The design of the air
-------
6.43
intake from the dryer is tight with minimal opening. The
combination cyclone and baghouse are properly sized for this
application. Recording instrumentation for pressure drop
temperature and dew point have been provided. A permit to
construct is recommended with the following conditions:
a. The dryer burner will be in operation prior to
the introduction of aggregate to the kiln for a
sufficient length of time to bring the baghouse
temperature to 250° F.
b. Sampling ports are provided upstream of the
cyclone, between the cyclone and baghouse and
at the baghouse exhaust.
-------
6.44
G. Brass Reverberatory Furnace and Baghouse
1. Equipment and Process Description
A permit to construct is requested for a baghouse serving a 50 ton
reverberatory furnace for melting yellow brass.
37
The following data is derived from the basic equipment description:
50 ton brass reverberatory furnace natural gas fired
charge - 105,000 Ibs brass and bronze scrap
charge period - 6.7 hours
air blow - 10 mins to 2 hrs per heat 160 cf , @ 15 psig
refining period - 9.3 hours
pour - 3.53 hours
temp, of exhaust gas - 2300° F.
fuel rate - 110 cfm natural gas @ 20% excess air
Volume of gases from furnace
Products of combustion at 20% excess air
110 cfm x 13.86 cfm p.c. per cfm gas = 1520 cfm @ 60° F.
Air blown into metal bath
160 cfm 14'+15 = 323 cfm @ 60° F.
Total gases @ 60° F. = 1843 cfm
1843 x 46° 3° = 9800 cfm @ 2300° F.
The following data is derived from the description of the air
pollution control system:
Exhaust system
Fan 8,000 cfm @ 400°F.
3 Hoods one at pouring spout and one each at charing
2
and slagging doors. Face area = 6.55 ft .
Design indraft velocity = 150 ^=— - assume
mm
-------
6.45
air at 100°F.
Then 6.55 ft2 x 150 ^- = 982 cfm @ 100°F.
mm
o
Cooling surface - 7000 ft of 27" diameter black iron duct.
Baghouse
2000 ft Orion cloth, with pulse bag cleaning. Gases
are to be cooled to the baghouse operating temperature
of 400° F. by radiation/ convection.
2. Evaluations and Calculations
_, . ,^ 105.000 Ib (metal) _ _ oor. Ib
a. Process weight 6. 7^+9.30'+ 3. 53 (hrs) =5'38°hT
b. Allowable loss38
F _ , S9/5380\°'62 - 6 6 ^
E ~ 3'59 ~ 6<6
hr
The exhaust system schematic is shown in Figure 6.13.
c. Heat balance (excluding radiation & convection losses)
Furnace exhaust (assume air)
1843 scfm x 45.61 — j @ 2300° F. = 84,000
Air from hoods
3 x 982 of, x 0.75 , 100- F. - 2,020
Total = 86,020
mm
-------
6.46
Cooling
Ducts
982 982 982
cfm @ cfm @ cfm @
100°F 100°F 100°F
A
Fan 26,000 cfm
400°F
Furnace
9800 cfm
@ 2300°F.
Baghouse
Figure 6.13.
Exhaust System Schematic for a Baghouse
Serving a Brass Furnace
-------
6.47
Hoods 3 x 982
Furnace
= 2730 cfm
1843 cfm
Total volume @ 60°F. = 4573 cfm
18.85
4,573 scfm
This corresponds to a temperature of 1054°F. (air)
Weight of gases (assume air)
4,573 scfm x 29
-S21 = 350 ^-
mm
379
mol
39
d. Radiation-Convection Cooling
Q = quantity of heat to be disipated
*
n ocn Ib ,_ min 0/, c Btu
Q = 350 —T— x 60 ; x 244.5
mm
hr
Ib
_ ., --
= 5.15 x 10
Log Mean Temperature Difference
" ta) ~ (t2 " ta)
(t1 - t )
In
tI = temp, of gases
entering cooling
ducts = 1054°F-
t? = temp, of gases
leaving cooling
ducts = 400°F.
t = temp, of ambient
a air = 100°F.
Enthalpy of Air at 1054°F.
-------
6.48
At = 654
m 1 954
ln 300
At = 564°F.
m
Cooling Surface Required
.Btu
Use overall heat transfer coefficient of 1.5
hr-ft2-°F
(this is generally accepted for rusted black iron duct
at an average velocity of 3500—;—)
mm
Btu
A- Q hr
UAt Btu
m
hr-ft2-°F X °F
A „ 5.15 x 106 = 2
1.5 x 564
2
with 27" diameter duct, length = 2?in° ^ = 865 ft
— i^ x 77
2
This compares favorably with 7000 ft of 27" duct proposed.
e. Total Volume of Gases to fan
4573 scfm x = 7550 cfm @ 400°F.
-------
6.49
f. Baghouse
R 2
Orion bags 2000 ft filter area giving a filter ratio of
3.77:1 at 400°F.
3. Summary and Conclusions
The exhaust system and hoods show proper design characteristics
for effective fume pick-up at critical points, i.e., charging
doors and pouring spout. The indraft velocity is adequate for
a close fitting hood. Instrumentation includes baghouse temper-
ature and pressure drop alarms if either exceeds set limits.
The baghouse has a relatively high filter ratio of 3.77:1. Since
pulse cleaning is used, the filter ratio can safely go this high
and still prove 99%+ collection efficiency for metalic fume. The
•p
Orion cloth is acceptable for this service at 400°F. which also
precludes problems of bag blinding from condensed moisture.
Conditional approval for permit to construct is recommended
provided that dampers are placed in each branch line to allow
proper balancing for air flow and that sampling parts be located
upstream and downstream of the baghouse.
-------
6.50
H. Grey Iron Cupola and Baghouse
1. Equipment and Process Description
A permit is requested for a baghouse to serve a grey iron cupola.
The following data summarizes the description of the basic
equipment:
45" I.D. grey iron cupola with CO afterburner
Process weight 20,2007— (8:1 iron to coke ratio)
AH LI i 40 n c - Ib
Allowable loss =15.1 r—
hr
3450 scfm tuyere air, with air weight controls
Operating conditions - maximum temperature of exhaust gases
during burndown = 2000° F.,
Minimum temperature = 500° F.»
Temperature during melt = 1200° F.
2
Charging door 7 ft (maximum opening)
The following data summarizes the description of the air pollution
control equipment:
2
Glass cloth tubular bags 8,500 ft
Cleaning - reverse flow (automatic)
Pressure drop across baghouse = 4" we max.
Exhaust system - 15,500 cfm exhaust system and evaporative
cooler with a water rate of 20 &^—
mm
The system schematic is shown in Figure 6.14.
2. Evaluation and Calculations
Combustion of coke produces significant volumes of CO, and the
partial combustion of grease and oil from scrap produces smoke
and oil mists. An afterburner is required to complete combustion.
-------
6.51
23,000 cfm
Cupola
19,000 cfm
@ 1200°F
««-Gas burner
2
7 ft- Tinny
/ A 1- U\JUi.
Area
20 GPM Water
1
*-
i n i
500°F , .
14280 I
cfm
max. |
14070J
Evap.
Cooler
cfm min.
Baghouse
AP 4 "we
Figure 6.14. Dust & Fume Collection System for Grey Iron Cupola
-------
6.52
Temperature of 1200°F. and luminous flame have proven effective for
smoke and CO control.
a. During condition of 2000° F. stack gas temperature (condition 1).
Volume of gases reaching the baghouse are:
Tuyere air = 3450 scfm
41
Indraft at charge door - worst condition
7 ft2 x 200 -^r- = 1400 scfm
mm
At furnace exhaust temperature of 2000° F.
afterburner may be kept at a minimal flow
•F-f- / 0
10 cfm x 11.45 —r- @ theoretical air = 115 scfm
Assume exhaust gases are air = 4965 scfm
or 4965 scfm x 0.075 -^- = 372 •—•
scfm mm
Water required to cool gas to 500°F. (baghouse operating temperat
Aheat between 2000°F. and 500°F.
4965 scfm x (38.99* - 8.17+) ^- = 153,000 ^~
scfm ' min
Water rate
Q = hg - hf Q = heat absorbed Btu/
h = heat content of sa
urated steam
h <§ 500°F. and 1 atm. = 1201.70 —
8 lb
h @ 60°F. = 28.06^
-1- lb
Q = 1173.64
153,000 2£H
^ - 130.5 lb - "
h-= heat content of
saturated liquid
*Enthalpy of air at 2000°F
1173.64 i min
±b
Btu
scfm
+Enthalpy of air at 500°F. BtU
scfm
-------
6.53
Volume of water vapor
lb
130 5
lb mol
Total volume of gases to baghouse @ 500°F.
Products of combustion = 4965 ^r- x K% * 5®°\ = 9200 cfm
mm *460 + 60 /
H0 Vapor = 5Q80
Total =14280 cfir
b. During melting period average temperature of exhaust gases from
cupola = 1200° F. (result of afterburner, condition 2)
Natural gas required (assume gases from furnace @ 500° F.)
Heat tuyere air from 500° F. to 1200° F-
3450 scfm (21.98*- 8.17) —;- = 47,700^-
scfm mm
Heat air thru charging door from
60° F. to 1200° F.
1400 scfm (21.98 - 0) ^r- = 30,800
sctm
Total = 78,500^
Natural gas net heat available at 1200° F.
and 100% theoretical air 3 = 721.3
78,500 ^ ,. 3
-^iB. = 108.5 ^- natural gas
721.3Btu
ft
•Enthalpy of air at 1200°F.
titu
-------
6.54
Products of combustion from natural gas
Total volume of gases to water evaporation cooler
tuyere air 3450 scfm
indraft air 1400
products of combustion,
natural gas 1240
6090 scfm
+ 60°) = 11'
6090 x = 11'300 cfm @ 500°
Water required to cool gas from 1200° F. to 500° F.
6090 scfm x (21.98 - 8.17) - = 84,000
scfm mm
Q = h - h_ = 1173.64
g r ID
84,000 ££i
min ?1_5
Btu _ '-" min HO
Ib H20 ^
Total volume to baghouse at 500° F.
Furnace + afterburner = 11,300 cfm
water> JS x 379 . 2,770 cf.
Total = 14,070 cfm
-------
6.55
c. Flow calculations
40' of 30" duct, furnace to cooler
2 - 90° els (short radius) to evaporation cooler
20' of 30" duct from evaporation cooler to baghouse
2 2
T\ -rr f O ^ \ O
Crossectional area of duct = —7— = ^ ,' = 4.9 ft
4 4
3
Average velocity @ 23,000 cfm 23,000 —r— = 4700 t
(4965 scfm @ 2000° F., condition 1) 1-~ min
4.9 ftX
3
19,000 ^— f
Average velocity @ 19,000 cfm = m^n - = 3890 ——
(6090 scfm @ 1200° F..condition 2) 4.9 ft m
3
14,280 ^7—
Average velocity @ 14,280 cfm (500°F.)= S^ = 2920 -r-
(condition 1) 4.9 ft^3
14,070 ~- f
Average velocity @ 14,070 cfm (500°F.)= ^— = 287°
(condition 2) 4.9 ft
Pressure drop for worst case, 14,070 cfm @ 500° F. (condition 2)
The highest volume .at lowest temperature, therefore highest
weight of gas to be moved. This occurs at furnace discharge
temperature of 1200° F. and volume of gases from furnace =
19,000 cfm.
Pressure drop
TP = VP + SP TP = Total pressure
VP = Velocity pressure
SP = Static pressure
-------
6.56
Velocity pressure44 @ 3890 ^7- (19,000 cfm) and 1200°F.
mln
/ \2
VP =(1096j7 j x(density of gas — j )
V-
VP = U * (0.0238) = .30" we
40' of duct = 0.23 VP45
2 - 90° els = 1.10 VP
Entrance loss = 0.50 VP
SP = 1.83 VP or 1.83 (0.30) = 0.55" we
Cupola to evaporation cooler
Assume AP across cooler = 0.5" we
VP @ 2,87o|r^- (14,070 cfm) and 500° F.
2
2'87° ^ x (0.0412) = .283" we
20' of duct = 0.115 VP
2 - 90° els = 1.100 VP
SP = 1.215 or 1.215 x (.283) * 0.36" we
AP across baghouse = 4.00" we
System SP = 5.41" wc
TP = 0.34 + 5.41 = 5.75
Fan check
14,070 cfm @ 5.75" we static pressure and 500° F. Fan multiple
rating tables use stand
has a density of 0.0412
rating tables use standard air at 0.075 — 7. Air at 500° F.
ft
-------
6.57
To determine motor horse power (RPM remains constant for constant
i \46
volume)
70° F. D = hp@ 500° F.
Baghouse evaluation
Filter media - glass cloth
Glass cloth has good heat resistance at 500° F. and surge
of 600° F. Resistance to acid is good. Mechanical strength
characteristic will give average bag life.
Bag cleaning
Reverse flow is satisfactory for this service, supporting
high collection efficiency and displays good bag cleaning
uniformity.
Filter ratio
3
15,500 ^r-
min = 1.83:1
8,500 ft2
The filter ratio of 1.83:1 (1.83 —-) is attained at the
mm
maximum flow rate which is acceptable for this service.
Baghouse operation
Nominal operating temperature for the baghouse is 500° F.
If there are only short surges of higher temperatures there
should be no problems with damage to the bags.
Instrumentation - continuous recording instrumentation
for flow rates, gas temperature, baghouse temperature and
dew point levels have been provided.
-------
6.58
3. Summary and conclusions
It is recommended that the permit to construct be issued for the
baghouse in this permit request. The calculations show that proper
consideration has been given to the exhaust system for good indraft
at the charging door, sufficient water is available to reduce gas
temperatures to the desired level, and the baghouse is properly
sized.
The only conditional provision of the permit to construct is that
sampling ports be provided upstream of the baghouse and at the fan
exhaust duct or stack.
-------
6.59
I. Gasoline Storage and Transfer System
1. Equipment and Process Description
A bulk loading terminal is to be installed which includes a floating
roof gasoline storage tank of 400,000 gal. capacity and from which
30,000 gal. of gasoline per day are loaded. A self contained vapor
recovery system is to be installed. A schematic flow diagram of
the system is shown in Figure 6.15.
The following additional information, as a minimum, would be
necessary. (Note: In the case of the storage tank, some assumed
values are given so that an illustrative calculation of the daily
vapor loss can be made.)
Gasoline storage tank
Tank capacity - _400,000 gal
Tank diameter - 45 ft
Product - gasoline
Average storage temperature - 70° F.
Reid vapor pressure - 9 Ib
True vapor pressure - 5.7 psia (obtained from nomograph on
p. 615, "Air Pollution Engineering Manual"^?)
Ibs
Density of condensed vapors - 252 rrr
Shell construction - welded
Type floating roof seal - tube
Type floating roof - double deck
Paint color - white
Type and condition inner tank surface - smooth steel
Average wind velocity - 6 mph
Vapor recovery system
Absorber design, including diameter, height and type of
packing or number and type trays, vapor and gasoline flow
rates, temperatures in absorber, vapor concentration at
-------
Saturation Pot
To Atmosphere
Absorber , "?~^""!
Flash Arrestor
Pump-Gasoline Feed
A to Absorber
Vapor Hood
Tank Truck
Compressor -
2-Stage
Tank Gage
and Switch
Intercooler
Pump-Gasoline Feed
to Saturation Pot
To Compressor
and Starter
Gasoline
Storage
Gasoline to Loading Rack
Loading Rack Feed Pump
Figure 6.15.
Schematic flow diagram of a vaporsaver unit used for recovery
of loadine rack vapors at a bulk gasoline terminal
-------
6.61
inlet, assumed composition of vapors.
Vapor sphere capacity
Compressor capacity
Intercooler capacity
Maximum loading rate
Emergency venting system
Location and height of all vents
Loading rack vapor collection system
Design of loading arm if hatch loading used including means
to obtain a vapor-tight seal between the vapor collecting
adapter and the hatch, and the means used to prevent liquid
gasoline drainage from the loading device when it is
removed from the hatch of any tank truck or trailer.
If bottom loading, loading and vapor lines should be
described including means to obtain vapor-tight connections
and the type of closure devices used in liquid lines.
Standards - Generally speaking two types of standards would
apply to the construction and operation of a bulk loading
terminal for gasoline such as used here for illustration.
The first would have to do with the storage of volatile pet-
roleum products and the second with gasoline loading operations.
Typical of these are Rule 56 "Storage of Petroleum Products"
and Rule 61 "Gasoline Loading into Tank Trucks and Trailers" of
49
the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. J Both
are equipment specification type standards rather than emission
standards. The essential elements of these rules follow:
-------
6.62
Rule 56 - Provides that any tank greater than 40,000 gallons
capacity used for storing gasoline or any petroleum distillate
having a vapor pressure of 1.5 psia or greater must be equipped
with a vapor control device such as a pontoon-type or double-
deck floating roof or a vapor recovery system capable of collec-
ting all emissions, except that a floating roof may not be
used if the vapor pressure under actual storage conditions
exceeds 11 psia.
Rule 61 - Provides for installation of vapor recovery and dispos
systems on bulk loading facilities where more than 20,000 &^~
day
of gasoline are loaded and requires that loading be conducted
with vapor-tight lines and that provision be made to eliminate
drainage and disconnect losses. The disposal system must have
a minimum recovery efficiency of 90%, or have a variable vapor
space tank, compressor, and fuel gas system of such capacity
so as to handle all vapors and gases displaced from the trucks
being loaded.
Significant difficulties may be encountered in determining what
the actual recovery efficiency is in a vapor recovery and dis-
posal system. Among the problems are:
a. Erratic flow of vapors from the tank truck usually precludes
measuring the actual volume of vapor evolved during loading.
-------
6.63
b. The degree of saturation with gasoline vapors of the air
displaced from the truck depends on the type of loading, e.g.,
splash, submerged, bottom fill.
c. Efficiency, as measured on recovery of vapors evolved depends
on (b) above and it may be nearly impossible to obtain 90%
when submerged or bottom fill is used. In the latter cases
the degree of saturation (amount of gasoline vapor) of the
displaced air—vapor mixture is less than with splash fill
and though the mass loss of vapor may be the same for all
loading techniques, the percent recovery will vary depending
upon the quantity of vapor entering the recovery system.
d. Efficiency also depends upon bulk liquid temperature, and
the low degree of saturation attendant with low bulk tempera-
tures will affect recovery efficiency as in (c) above.
Evaluation and Calculations
a. The storage tank has a capacity of over 50,000 gal and will
store gasoline having a vapor pressure over 1.5 psia, so Rule
56 will apply. It is not expected that the vapor pressure
will exceed 11 psia under storage conditions so a double deck
or pontoon-type floating roof tank with adequate seals will
suffice. The specifications for the tank can be examined
against Table 168 "Standing Storage Losses from Floating-Roof
Tanks", p. 613, "Air Pollution Engineering Manual" and it
will be seen that it will have the lowest loss factor possible.
Riveted, pan roof tanks of a color other than white would have
higher loss factors. However, it is desired to calculate
-------
6.64
expected hydrocarbon losses for an emission inventory so this
will be done as an example. The standing storage emission
formula for floating-roof tanks is given as
E=K D1'5/?\7 V'7KKK
^(-s V7
Vu.7 - ?;
Ibs
Where E = Evaporation loss in ——
K = Tank type factor = .045 for welded tank with
double deck roof
D = Tank diameter = 45 ft
P = True vapor pressure =5.7 psia
V = Average wind velocity = 6 mph
K = Seal condition factor = 1.00 for new tight fitting
S
tube seal
K = Stock factor = 1.00 for gasoline
K = Paint factor =0.90 for white
P
W = Density of condensed vapors = 252
bbl
.7
- -°45 (45>1'3(l4?77- 5.7)' <6>'? <«&><•» (if)
- 20.6 lb
day
52
The withdrawal loss formula is given as
L = (.0224) ~I
Where L = loss in ~-
day
C = Clingage factor (This is based upon the inside
tank surface characteristics and how much
-------
6.65
gasoline can cling to it after the floating roof
drops as a result of withdrawal of gasoline.)
Assume 0.02 for smooth steel tank
D = Diameter of tank = 45 ft
W = Density of condensed vapors = 252 ~-
DD±
V = Throughput = 750
-
day
0 0? TT 7^0 Y 9S9 1T-\
L = (.0224) U'U2 x /MJ x 252 = 1.8 lb
45 da?
Total losses from tank = 20.6 +1.8 = 22 4 •^b—
day
b. Vapor recovery system for truck loading
For this system, the approach rather than actual calculation,
will be given. Referring to the schematic flow diagram, gas-
oline vapors displaced at the loading rack are passed through
a saturator countercurrently to gaspline pumped from storage.
This is done to prevent the existence of explosive mixtures.
The saturated vapors then flow to the vaporsphere. The position
of the flexible diaphragm actuates a switch which starts the
compressor which injects the vapors to the absorber at about
200 psig. Stripped gasoline from the saturator or gasoline
from storage is used to absorb the gasoline vapors, with the
tail gases being vented to atmosphere through a back pressure
regulator. Gasoline from the absorber bottoms containing the
absorbed vapors is returned to storage.
Several key design elements are involved in such a system. The
compressor and absorber may be sized and designed to handle the
average daily throughput if the vaporsphere is large enough to
handle the peak flow. The criteria upon which these design
-------
6.66
decisions are based should be included in the application.
In the case of the absorber a review of the design calculations
should be made. A variety of accepted techniques are available
for absorption tower design, but all require much the same data.
These include vapor-liquid equilibrium data for the solute and
solvent, gas flow rate, entering solute concentration (in this
case gasoline vapor in air), type packing if packed tower or
plate description if a plate type column, operating temperature,
efficiency required, and concentration of solute in feed
solvent.
c. The basic steps involved in the design of an absorption tower
are:
(1) Calculate liquid (solvent) flow rate necessary to absorb
the required amount of gasoline vapor. This is basically
a material balance. The maximum concentrations of solute
in the outlet liquid must be such that the conditions at
the bottom of the tower do not too closely approach the
equilibrium curve.
(2) Calculate tower diameter. This is based upon volumetric
flow rates and physical characteristics of the tower
packing (or plates), the gas and liquid densities, and the
liquid viscosity. The criterion used is to maintain flow
rate per unit area below some stated percentage (often 60%)
of flooding conditions.
(3) Determine number of transfer units (packed column) or
theoretical plates. A stepwise graphical solution is often
used. The general approach is described in the section on
53
Gas Absorption in the "Air Pollution Engineering Manual"
-------
6.67
beginning on p. 211. Specific methods for multi-component
situations such as the case with gasoline vapors are
available.
(4) Determine height of a transfer unit (packed tower) or number
of actual plates. In the case of packed towers, these are
experimentally derived factors depending upon the type of
packing and the gas and liquid flow rates. In plate type
towers, experimentally determined plate efficiencies are
used.
(5) Calculate pressure drop through tower. This is done to
determine pump and compressor requirements.
(6) Tank loading equipment - the evaluation to be performed
here is that of determining whether the loading arms or
delivery lines and the vapor return lines meet the require-
ments of vapor-tight connections, and no liquid loss during
removal or disconnect operations. There are a variety of
proprietary devices. Whichever one is selected by the
applicant, drawings and data submitted should be sufficient
to describe the mechanical functioning of the equipment and
results of field testing or use.
3. Summary and Conclusions
The proposed bulk loading terminal is of such design so as to be
able to operate within the standards used for criteria in this
illustration. The evaluation of the gasoline storage tank and bulk
loading equipment is fairly straightforward and within the competence
of a graduate chemical or mechanical engineer with relatively little
experience. A trained engineering assistant with specific experience
in petroleum processing equipment could also perform this portion
of the evaluation.
-------
6.68
The evaluation of the vapor recovery plant, and in particular the
absorber, would require a higher level of experience. As an
example, a graduate chemical engineer with an adequate background
in mass transfer and additional training or experience in high
pressure, multi-component hydrocarbon absorption equipment should
perform this evaluation.
-------
6.69
J- Two Dry Rendering Cookers Venting to a Contact Condenser and
Vapor Incinerator.
1. Equipment and Process Description
A permit to construct is requested for a contact condenser and vapor
incinerator serving two 3,000 pound capacity dry rendering cookers.
The basic equipment is a captive operation in a meat packing plant.
Material charged consists of bone and meat scrap with a 50% moisture
content. Since the charge is relatively fresh there will be no
provisions for hoods at the perculator pans.
The system schematic is shown in Figure 6.16.
The specifications for the air pollution control system are:
a. Condenser water rate is 100 gpm
b. The incinerator uses natural gas as fuel at the
3
rate of 320 ft , has a throat diameter of 9 inches,
hr
combustion chamber diameter of 12 inches and
combustion chamber length of 4.5 feet.
2. Evaluation and Calculations
Rate of evaporation
3000 Ib scrap x 2 cookers _ _ n ,-nn lb
— X . J — J.JUU ,
2 hrs hr
Assume that 10% of the moisture remains in the tallow and cracklings.
Then the total water to be evaporated will be 1350 ^ . This will
not be evenly distributed over the full hour but will surge during
the first part of the cooking, cycle. The "Air Pollution Engineering
Manual" states that this may be in the ratio of 2:1 relative to the
average rate of evaporation.
-------
Effluent from Cookers
Feed
to
Cookers
Cooker
Hogger
200°F
100GPM -J
Condenser *-^/r
y
120°F
r
Cooker
To Sewer
Perc
Pan
1400°F
ft/hr Nat. Gas
*Af ter burner
Figure 6.16. Schematic of Condenser & Afterburner Serving two Dry Rendering Coolers
(Source: Reference 54, Modified)
-------
6.71
Therefore the maximum rate of vapor generation may be
1350 ~
&3L. x 2 . 45 lb_
60 fiB. mm
hr
Gases are to be condensed from 200° F. to 120° F. by the contact
condenser.
45 ~- x 977.9 |£i = 44,000 ^ (condensation)
mm lb ' min
45 ^- x (200+- 120**) |£L = 3,600 ^ (subcooling)
min xb min
Cooling load = 47,600^7^
mm
TT *. • «. 47,600 ,„ lb
Water requirements = min = 1 53 —
- __
(120 - 60)
793 Mn X 0-1198ib1 = 95 gpm required
Assume that 10% of the volume of gases handled will reach the
incinerator plus an additional 10% leakage.
^ x.2= 9.0^- x 60 SiH =540^
min mm hr hr
Incinerator operating temperature is 1400° F.
Ah55 = enthalpy of gas @ 1400° F. - enthalpy @ 120° F.
= 341.5 - 14.6
Btu
= 326.9
lb
Btu
* Heat of evaporation @ 200°F. and 11.53 psi absolute ~
+ Btu/lb of water @ 200°F.
**Btu/lb of water @ 120°F.
-------
6.72
540 326<9 Btu = 176}5{)o
hr" * J^'y Ib hr
10% for radiation and convection losses = 18,600
195.100
Net heat available from combustion of natural gas (1100 f )
@ 1400° F. = 668
ft
195,100
,,0 , Btu
668.6 — -
ft
3 3
= 290 £=- gas required - 320 ft /hr supplied ok
hr
49
Volume of gasses to incinerator
3 3
11.45 ft products of combustion per ft of natural gas burned.
320 - x 11.45 ^r x (460 + 1400) ,
hr f
3.65
3,600 x (46o + 60)
hr
Gases from condenser and leakage (assuming air)
9 -^r- x 379 U - - x (460 + 1400) , 3
mm Ib mol _ ft
~ 6. 86
- .
29 4r - r x (460 + 60) x 60 ^ S6C
ID moX
ft3
Total to incinerator = 10.51—-
CO
sec
Velocity of gases through throat /
Throat diameter = 9"
3
Volume = sec = 24 Acceptable, 15 to 25 reco
— sec r sec
-------
6.73
Velocity of gases through the combustion chamber
Combustion chamber diameter = 12"
^3
Velocity
1 n
.785 ft
sec =13.4
ft
sec
Acceptable, 10 to 15 —^-
sec
recommended.
Retention time
Combustion chamber length = 4.5 ft
4.5 ft
/
sec
= 0.34 sec. Acceptable, recommended retention time
is >0.3 sec.
3. Recommendations and Conclusion
The design parameters for the air pollution control system are
within the acceptable range for the control of malodorous gases
from the two rendering cookers. It is therefore recommended that
a permit to construct be issued based upon the following conditions,
a. Water flow meter be installed on the fresh water line
to the condenser.
b. Time and temperature recording instrument be installed
on the incinerator.
-------
6.74
K. Triple Superphosphate Plant
1. Equipment and Process Description
A 500 -7^ capacity plant for the production of granular triple
day
superphosphate by the continuous slurry process is to be built. It
will be near the site of an existing wet process phosphoric acid
plant where approximately 40% ^2°5 ecluivalent phosphoric acid will
be obtained. Ground phosphate rock from the same source supplying
the phosphoric acid plant will be used in the process.
A schematic diagram of the plant to be built is shown in Figure 6.17
A tremendous variation is possible in plants such as this. The
specific arrangement, type of equipment, and method of operation
would depend upon raw materials availability, integration with
existing facilities, plant location (although this plant is as-
sumed to be located in the Gulf Coast area), and product demand.
One obvious variation would be provision for ammoniation of the
granular material. If such provision were made it would have a
definite effect on the treatment facilities for gaseous effluents.
An engineer processing this application would require significantly
more information in a real situation including (1) an assay of the
phosphate rock, (2) specific design details on each item of equip-
ment, (3) location of all points of discharge to venting or control
systems, (4) design volume of all exhaust systems, (5) exhaust fan
and motor ratings, (6) materials of construction, (7) fuel and air
rates to dryer, provision for preventing fluoride emissions from
scrubber water impound ponds, e.g. pH adjustment or liming, (8) whe
or not the scrubber water to be used for by-product fluoride recove
(9) performance characteristics of all air pollution control equipnn
-------
Tall Gas
Water
Acidulators
Phosphoric
Acid
Phosphate
Rock
Air
Steam
Oversize
Mill
Product
l-n
Dryer
Figure 6.17. Continuous process for the manufacture of granular triplesuperphosphate
(Source: reference 56)
-------
6.76
Additional details and a brief process description follow:
Triple superphosphate is an impure monocalcium phosphate made
by reacting phosphoric acid with phosphate rock. Assuming the
rock to be in the form of calcium fluorapatite the principal
reaction occuring is
+ 14 HP0 - ~10Ca(HPC>) + 2HP
Although any phosphoric acid may be used, wet process phosphoric
acid made by the complete acidulation of phosphate rock with
sulfuric acid is almost universally used. Triple superphosphate
plants are usually located in a complex of plants including
phosphoric acid production near phosphate rock deposits.
In the process being considered here granular triple super-
phosphate is being made in a continuous slurry process. Ground
phosphate rock and phosphoric acid is fed to (1) the first of a
series of reaction tanks (acidulators) where heating and agitatio
with steam and air promotes the rapid reaction between the rock
and acid. (Note: for purposes of calculations 0.648 tons of 54%
PJD,. equivalent acid and 0.393 tons of rock are required per ton
of product.) The reaction is essentially completed after the
third reactor from which the slurry passes to the (2) blunger
where drying is stimulated by mixing with recycled fines,
crushed oversize, and fines from the dust collector. The partial.
dried granular material is then fed to a (3) rotary dryer, and
then to a (4) series of screens where a product of the desired pa
ticle size is withdrawn and fines and oversize material is recycl
Dust from the dryer and materials handling is exhausted through
a (5) dust collector, while effluent gases containing HF (hydrogei
fluoride) are passed through a (6) scrubber.
-------
6.77
2. Evaluation and Calculations
a. Standards
It is assumed that this plant will have to meet standards for both
particulate matter and fluorides. The particulate emission standard
used will be that based upon process weight described under par. 2.5,
Appendix B, Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158, August 14, 1971. For
process weight up to 60,000 -^ the allowable emission rate is expressed
by the equation:
E = 3.59 P°'62
where
E = emission rate I ;—
P = process weight rate I r—
In this example, the production rate is given as 500 -—, and feed
rate is 0.648 ton of 54% P-O,. equivalent acid and 0.393 ton rock
per ton of product. However, since 40% PoO^ equivalent acid will
actually be used, the rate of consumption at that concentration
will be
0.648(-:4^) = 0.875 ton 40% P20 equivalent acid per ton product
500 x (.875 + .393) ., , ton
Process weight = ^57 =26.4 7—
Allowable loss = 3.59 (26.4)0'62 = 27.2
For determining allowable fluoride emissions, the State of Florida
Prohibitive Acts 17-2.04 par. (6)(c)l.a 4.ii will be used. Basically
this states that the emission of fluoride to atmosphere expressed
as Ib. F per ton P?0 shall not exceed 0.15. Other factors are to
be considered such.as latest technology, plant location, etc. To
-------
6.78
calculate allowable loss we will assume the entire product weight o
500 ~^ has the formula CaCH-PO,)-. The molecular weight for this
compound is 234. For P2°5 the m°lecular weight is 142. Since ther
is one mole P^O- per mole of product, the amount of P?0 present pe
"\ / 9
ton of product is given by the ratio -rrr = .605. (Note: in an
actual situation the exact product assay should be used.)
n . , 500 x .605 10 , ton
Amount of P?0 m product = JT = l^.o < - -
Allowable fluoride loss = 0.15 x 12.6 = 1.89 -^-^
hr
b. Evaluation of air pollution control equipment
In a triple superphosphate plant where hot corrosive gases and par-
ticulate matter that cakes below the dew point are present, the succe
of the control equipment depends greatly upon selection of proper
materials of collection and on maintaining proper conditions in the
exhaust and control equipment.
For the control of particulates, very high efficiency wet scrubbers
or cloth filters will be necessary. In the case of wet scrubbers sui
as wet cyclones or venturi scrubbers, the important design features
include (1) operation at no less than the xated pressure drop, (2)
amount and pressure of water delivered to nozzles, and (3) correct
equipment sizing. Source test data on similar plants should be ex-
amined so that an estimate as to the amount and size distribution of
the particulates entering the collection equipment can be made.
If cloth filters are to be used, the proper fabric must be specified
and a check made as to the design filter ratio - volume of exhaust ii
-------
6.79
ff 2
per effective filter area in ft . Heat exchange calculations
may be necessary to insure that temperatures can be maintained above
the dew point.
The control of gaseous fluorides is to be accomplished by use of ah
absorption column (scrubber). Hydrogen fluoride, which is evolved
in the acidulation process, is very soluble in water, but some check
should be made of the design absorption efficiency of the scrubber
to determine whether the standards can be met. Silicon tetrafluoride,
SiF^, and fluosilicic acid, H^SiF,, may be formed with silica and
water that is present in the off-gases, but we will base our dis-
cussion on HF. All the fluorine originally present is derived from
the phosphate rock. We will assume all the rock consists of calcium
fluorapatite, 3[Ca (?(),)„] x CaF_, which has a formula weight of
1008. Two moles of HF (equivalent to one mole F~) is formed for
every mole of fluorapatite. The molecular weight of F« is 38. Loss
calculations are based upon F rather than HF (see standards). We
can calculate the amount of fluorine entering the process as follows:
Total F _ 500 x .393 x 38 2000 = lb;
Total F - x
Ib F
From an earlier calculation we know allowable loss is 1.89—7——
The efficiency of collection and removal must be
Efficiency = 6156^1'89 = .997 or 99.7%
-------
6.80
Note: Not all the fluorine present will be released as gaseous HF.
Some, in fact, will be present in the granular product. For purpose
of the illustration the efficiency calculation assumes that all the
fluorine originally present enters the scrubber.
Additionally, Florida law requires a "curing" building for the prodi
These structures should also have closed ventilation systems venting
through a scrubber.
Absorption calculations should be made which will vary depending
upon whether a venturi scrubber, cyclonic spray tower or packed bed
unit is specified. Pressure drop, scrubber dimensions, and flow
rate of scrubber water are all important. Discharge water which
normally will go to treatment ponds for ultimate return to the proce
must be adjusted in pH (usually above 8) to prevent excessive loss
from the ponds. In some cases fluorine by-product recovery will be
incorporated.
3. Summary and Conclusions
Triple superphosphate plants can be built which, by using best available
technology, can meet rigid performance standards. Attention to all de-
tails is important including conservatively designed dust and fume exhau
systems, selection of the proper control equipment for each job, allowan
of safety factors in sizing collection equipment, and selection of the
proper materials of construction.
Definite consideration should be given to the use of an on-line tail
gas analyzer for fluorides. Adequate testing facilities should be pro-
vided at the inlet and outlet of each control device.
-------
6.81
L. Ammonium Nitrate
1. Equipment and Process Description
A 400 ton per day plant for the production of ammonium nitrate prills
is to be constructed. Feed to the plant will be anhydrous ammonia
and 60% nitric acid. Figure 6.18 shows a schematic diagram of the
process and major items of equipment used.
The engineer processing this application will require at least the
following information: (1) exact ratio of feed ammonia to nitric
acid, (2) design of vent system for neutralizer and evaporator,
(3) design details on scrubber-condenser including diameter, height,
internal construction, scrubber water rate, amount of water to be
condensed, assumed entering ammonia concentration, and calculated
concentration of ammonia in the tail gases, (4) prilling tower design
details, including cross-sectional area, height, and air flow rate.
In the process being considered ammonium nitrate is produced by the
reaction between ammonia and nitric acid according to the reaction:
On a stoichiometric basis (exact chemical equivalence) 0.787 tons of
nitric acid (100% equivalent) and 0.213 tons of ammonia are required
for one ton of product. In actual practice anhydrous ammonia is used
but the typical feed acid contains only about 55-60% HNO_.
The feed materials are introduced to a neutralizer where ammonium
nitrate in the form of a solution is produced accompanied by the
release of heat. This heat of reaction is generally sufficient to
evaporate part of the water, giving a concentrated solution of
molten ammonium nitrate. Excess NH3 traces of nitrogen oxides, and
water vapor are vented to the scrubber-condenser.
-------
Ammonia
Nitric Acid
NH NO , HO (Vapor)
j X
Neutralizer
Evaporator
Tail Gases
Water
Scrubber-Condenser
Condensate
Air
(NH NO Fume)
Prilling
Tower
Air
Product
Ammonium Nitrate
oo
Figure 6.18.
Flow diagram for manufacture of ammonium nitrate
(Source: reference 57)
-------
6.83
The concentrated ammonium nitrate is then sprayed down from the
top of the "prilling" tower through a rising stream of air. The
droplets solidify and harden through their fall resulting in spherical
pellets called "prills" which may be bagged after further drying on
a conveyor to a moisture content usually less than 0.5%. Depending
on the design of the tower, and solution and air rates, some ammonium
nitrate fume can be lost from the top of the tower. The amount is
generally very low.
Evaluation and Calculations
a. Standards
Only two types of standards are likely to be applicable in the
case of an ammonium nitrate plant (assuming no public nuisance).
These would cover visible emissions and dusts from industrial
processes. Ammonium nitrate fume from the prilling tower will
be the principal concern. We will assume that the suggested
standards under paragraph 2.1 and paragraph 2.5, Appendix B,
Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 158, August 14, 1971 are to
apply. In the case of paragraph 2.1, visible emissions are not
to exceed 20% opacity. Under paragraph 2.5, the particulate
matter emitted from the process shall not exceed that amount (in
— ) given by the following formula:
E = 3.59 P°'62
where P S 30 ~^- . (process weight)
hr
In this example:
.213 x 400 „ ,, ton
NH_ required = — ^4 = hr
-------
6.84
P = 3.56 + 21.8 = 25.36
and
E = 3.59 x(25.36)°'62 = 26.6^
Evaluation of process
The first evaluation step that should be taken concerns the
potential gaseous emissions from the neutralizer and evaporator.
Nitrogen oxides which might originate from the nitric acid can
be suppressed by operating with a slight excess of ammonia.
Because ammonia is so soluble in water, there should be little
trouble in reducing ammonia losses to very low levels by properly
designed scrubber-condenser, particularly since there should be
practically no non-condensibles in the tail gases. Even without
a specific emission standard an estimate should be made of the
maximum expected NH, loss.
The main problem from ammonium nitrate plants has been the
objectionable plxime or haze formed as the result of small
amounts of ammonium nitrate fume being discharged into a moist
atmosphere, and the consequent growth of nuclei to aerosols of
a highly visible size (about 0.4 - l.Ojx). Although the mass
rate of discharge is unlikely to exceed the allowable loss rate,
visible plumes greater than the 20% opacity allowed may form.
It is known, however, that some ammonium nitrate plants operate
without significant plume formation. Although no precise
correlations appear to have been made, information from plant
operators suggests that a relatively large prilling tower cross-
sectional area per ton of production or volume of drying air
CO
contributes to a reduced plume potential. Data should be submittec
-------
6.85
on this factor by the applicant showing how the proposed plant
compares with other existing plants, or on what basis a prediction
can be made that there will be no visible plume.
3. Summary and Conclusions
Ammonium Citrate plants are capable of being operated with very low
levels of air pollution. There should be little difficulty in
meeting stringent emission standards on particulate matter. Gaseous
emissions should be negligible. The principle problem is that of
haze formation, but plants exist that operate without haze. Plants
operating in an extremely humid climate are likely to have a greater
problem than others.
Source test access points should be made available at the scrubber
and the prilling tower discharge.
-------
6.86
M. SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATOR
1. Equipment and Process Description
A permit to construct has been requested for a multiple-hearth
sewage sludge incinerator rated at 850 — dry solids. The
exhaust from the incinerator is vented to a wet centrifugal
:ollector.
Filter cake is fed to the first hearth of the incinerator by
belt conveyor (see Figure 6.19). The cake contains 24% dry
~O 4-« i
solids with a heating value of approximately 8000 jr— . The
process includes drying in the upper hearth, burning of volatile
gases in the center zone, and burning the solids in the lower
zone. Natural gas (or oil) is the auxilliary fuel used to bring
the temperature in the center zone to 1600° F. The sludge is
continuously rabbled. The shaft holding the rabble arms is hollow
to allow for cooling air to be circulated by means of a special
blower. Air thus heated is used to preheat combustion air entering
the bottom of the furnace. (In actual practice the engineer con-
sidering this type of equipment for a permit to construct must
know the auxilliary fuel rate, temperature of the preheated air,
blower rating, water rate to scrubber, exhaust fan rating and
controls and instrumentation.)
2. Evaluation and Calculations
The principal air pollution control problems from the disposal of
sewage sludge by incinerator are odors and particulates. Particu-
lates have been satisfactorily controlled by the use of scrubbers.
Capacity of the wet collector is generally based upon volume of gases
handled, grain loading, air to water ratio and pressure drop.
-------
CHAMBER SECONDARY SLUDGE
[ RAW pRIW
X {SEWAGE
'-f
I
1 "
GRIT
T
IARY CLARIF
>
J TF
f^ SLUDGE
& G
AEF
"' FILT
I
\
IER h
..,,., lfcfc ( . V .^. RPPT.IIPMT
^ k )
ilCKLINoJ [ SECONDARY
?ILTER V-- CLARIFIER
REASE
?ATED HOLDING TANK j *"
[•RATE TO PRIMARY
C^^1^ wmnwr -A-.
/ • ft rr r« f-r^-r 1-1
7ACUUM S
FILTER
CAKE .inuuiiruQ x. .X
/HEARTH ^yX^
•^ INCINERATOR
i — ^ — _ oonnnRTTT?
unpPPR TMnRaAMTr.S TO PRTMAR
EXHAUST GASES JO STACK
oo
< PLANT WATER
SCRUBBER
TO FILL
Figure 6.19. Flow sheet of a typical plant with multiple hearth incinerator
(Source: reference 59)
-------
6,88
The volume of gases to reach the collector is derived from the
products of combustion of the fuel (at a specified percentage of
excess air, 20% - 50%) combustion products from the sludge and
water evaporated. Fuel requirements are determined from the heat
needed to evaporate the water in the sludge and to raise the products
of combustion and water vapor to the design temperature of 1600° F.
Retention time in the furnace is also critical. In order to burn
the organic gases which cause odors, a retention time of >0.3 seconds
at 1400° - 1600° F. is required.
Secondary air pollution control problems from sludge incinerators
are the formation of S09 and NO . Some of the sulfur oxides may
£• X
be removed from the effluent by the scrubber while very little of
the NO will be affected in this control device.
x
Emission standards for sludge incinerators are based upon those
published in the Federal Register, Volume 36, Number 158 - August
14, 1971, Appendix B. "The emission of particulate matter from
any incinerator can be limited to 0.20 pound per 100 pounds (2 ^)
kg
of refuse charged." Calculated rates of particulate losses will
be based upon the estimated grain loading in the effluent (statis-
tical data from stack tests) and applying the expected efficiency
of the air pollution control device using pressure drop, grain
loading, and particle size distribution.
3. Summary and Conclusions
The most difficult problem to control in the incineration of sewage
sludge is odors. Incinerator design parameters include a high
temperature zone, 1400 - 1600° F., with sufficient retention time
for complete burning of the noxious vapors. Additional consideration
for the prevention of odors must come upstream of the incinerator.
-------
6.89
Good plant design , proper operation and maintenance are all vital
factors in reducing odors which eminate from sewage plants. Septicity
of sludge can be avoided by providing sufficient sludge hoppers and
allowing for a flexible pumping schedule.
ii during operation of the incinerator odors remain a problem it may
be necessary to install an afterburner which can be the direct flame
type or catalytic type. These processes have proven very effective
in reducing odors from animal rendering, food processing and other
sources of noxious vapors.
When recommending a permit to construct a sewage sludge incinerator,
the following conditions should be included:
1. Instrumentation to protect against fuel burner failure,
2. Temperature measurement and control for high and low
temperatures,
3. Blower fail safe controls and warning,
4. Auxilliary fuel flow controls, and
5. Safety shut offs.
-------
6.90
III. SPECIAL FORMS FOR PROCESSING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Some air pollution control agencies have designed special processing
forms where a specific type of equipment comprises the bulk of the work-
load, or if the calculations are to be performed by a computer.
These forms are designed to reduce the time used in setting up data for
calculations, to quickly show what data is necessary or missing, provide
proper Identification of the file, and to provide sufficient
space for comments and recommendations. All situations cannot be
economically handled by special forms, but the following samples designed
by agencies with many years of experience in processing large numbers
of applications for permits exemplify cases where they can be used.
• A. Storage tanks
Figure 6.20, used by the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District, is an excellent example of a compact form for evaluating
applications for storage tanks. It enumerates all of the data
necessary to calculate the losses of vapors from breathing, filling,
evaporation and withdrawal of the product from fixed roof and
floating-roof tanks.
B. Exhaust systems
Checking exhaust systems, which may be a large part of the workload
of an agency, can be facilitated by the use of the form illustrated
in Figure 6.21. It may be used in either the balanced duct calcula-
tion method or the blast gate calculation method for evaluating
exhaust systems. The precalculated values shown in Figure 6.22 are
an additional aid in these computations. This form may be modified
slightly for use in calculating the pressure drop in a system at
temperatures above ambient by the addition of a column for velocity
pressure at the higher temperature.
-------
6.91
PROCESSING SHEET-FIXED AND FLOATING RQQF TANKS
GENERAL DATA
APPL. NO.
PROCESSED BY
DATE
CHECKED BY
TANK NO.
1 . PRODUCT
2. REID VAPOR PRESSURE
3. AVG. STORAGE TEMP.°F_
4. TRUE VAPOR PRESSURE,PSIA (P)
5. TANK DIAMETER. FT. (D)I
6. DENSITY OF COND. VAPORS.LBS/BBL (w)
FIXED ROOF TANK DATA
I. AVG. OUTAGE. FT. (H)
2. AVG. DAILY TEMPf CHANGE.°F(T) I
3. PAINT FACTOR (Fp)_
4. THROUGHPUT, BBL/DA.Y (V)
5. TURNOVERS PER YEAR
(KT)_
6• TURNOVER FACTOR
7. ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FOR
SMALL TANKS (C) .
8. CRUDE OIL FACTOR(BREATHING)(KC)_
9. CRUDE OIL FACTOR(FILLING) (KFC)
FLOATING ROOF TANK DATA
/ ?4 i / P V68 '-73 -DI -5 w
BREATHING LOSS: B-f-^-U—C \ D H T F- C K. x ^~ - LBS/DAY
MOOO/ \I4.7- P I ' * 365
OR FROM NOMOGRAPH: B= ^= X
YR 365
2. FILLING LOSS:
F =
3PV
10,000
KT KFC W = LBS/DAY
OR FROM NOMOGRAPH: F= §§L X ^ =
YR 365
3. TOTAL FIXED ROOF LOSSES - BREATHING LOSS + FILLING LOSS
I. TYPE F. R. SEAL
2. SHELL CONSTRUCTION
3. TANK TYPE FACTOR
4. AVG. WIND VELOCITY
A. LOSSES FROM
(KT)
. MPH (V^ )
FIXED ROOF TANKS
c;
6.
7.
9.
SEAL CONDITION FACTOR
CRUDE OIL FACTOR
PAINT FACTOR
CLINGAGE FACTOR
THROUGHPUT. BBL/DAY
IK,)
fKP)
frl
(V)
- LBS/DAY
-LBS/DAY
_ LBS/DAY
. LBS/DAY
.LBS/DAY
B. LOSSES FROM FLOATING ROOF TANKS
I. EVAPORATION LOSS: E= KT D1'5 / P
T (U.7-P
E =
"7 W'7 KS Kc KP X~ = LBS/DAY
OR FROM NOMOGRAPH: 6= lit X -JL
YK 365
,cvw
Z. WITHDRAWAL LOSS: L = (.0224)-j=j- = LBS/DAY =
3. TOTAL FLOATING ROOF LOSSES = EVAPORAT I ON LOSS + Wl THDRAWAL LOSS
LBS/DAY
LBS/DAY
LBS/DAY
LBS/DAY
C. NET CHANGE IN LOSSES
I. TOTAL FIXED ROOF LOSSES MINUS TOTAL FLOATING ROOF LOSSES = LBS/DAY
DECREASED INCREASED NO ,CHANGED 50053 R62-8
Figure 6.20. Processing form for gasoline storage tanks
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
RESISTANCE CALCULATIONS
KAN NO.
FIRM
DATE
A
No. of
br. or
main
Remark
B
PIPE
DIA.
in
inches
c
Plate
134
AREA
PIPE
in
so,, ft.
D
AIR
VOL.
in
C.F.M.
E
Vol.
Area
AIR
VEL.
in
F.PJ*.
F
v...2
4000
V.P.
in
inches
of
water
G
H
Plate
134
Pipe Length
in
feet
in
equiv't.
diaJs.
J
K
Plate
134
L
JX K
Elbows
NO.
OF
EL'S.
EQUIV'T.
DIA'S.
PER EL.
TOTAL
LENGTH
Of EL'S.
in eq'v't.
dia's.
M
H -I-L
TOTAL
LENGTH
in
e*quiv't.
dia's.
N
Plate
134
NO.
DIA'S.
FOR
ONE
V.P.
LOSS
P
M
XF
M
Q
R
HOOD
LOMW
plits
1 VP (F)
S
P4-R
Resistance in inches of H2 0
PIPE
HOOD
LOSS
HOOD
SUCT.
TOTAL
RESIS.
T
U
At Junction
GOV.
S.P.
Correctec
C.F.M.
*• — - - -
i-i
(D
I-i
o
o
(D
co
co
H-
2
00
Ml
O
Ml
O
I-i
n>
B-
S
CO
rt
co
rt
(D
IH-214 (Il-SS)
-------
6.93
RESISTANCE AND AIR FLOW THROUOH DUCTS AND ELBOWS
Boot
Size
n
it
In.
2
2*
3
*
4
4
5
54.
6
6?
7
H
6
%
S
9*
10
11
12
13
i4
16
16
1?
18
19
30
21
22
23
24
26
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
36
D*
In. 2
4
6*
9
13*
16
20*
25
30*
36
42*
49
56*
64
72*
81
90*
100
121
144
169
196
326
956
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
626
676
729
784
841
900
961
1024
1089
1156
1226
1296
Duct Area
In5
3.142
4.909
7.069
9.621
12.57
15.90
19.64
23.76
28.27
33.18
38.49
44.18
50.27
56.76
63.62
70.88.
78.64
95.03
113.1
132.7
153.9
176.7
201.1
227.0
254.5
283.5
314.2
346.4
380.1
415.5
452.4
490.9
530.9
572.6
616.8
660.6
706.9
754.8
804.3
855.3
907.9
962.1
1018
Ft.2
.0218
.0341
.0491
.0668
.0872
.1104
.1364
.1650
.1964
.2304
.2673
.3068
.3491
.3942
.4418
.4923
.5464
.6600
.7864
.9218
1.069
1.227
1.396
1.576
1.767
1.969
2.182
2.405
2.640
2.885
3.142
3.409
3.687
3.976
4.276
4.587
4.909
5.241
5.586
5.940
6.305
6.681
7.069
Factor
Ft. to
Bauiv
•*HW* v •
Blame.
6
4.8
4
3.43
3
2.67
2.40
2.18
2
1.86
1.71
1.6
1.6
1.41
1.33
1.87
1.2
1.09
1
.924
.867
.800
.760
.706
.667
.632
.600
.578
,546
.522
.60
.48
.462
.444
.429
.414
.400
.387
.375
.364
.363
.343
.333
Bqtlv.Diam.
for
90°L
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
IB
15
15
16
16
15
16
45°I
6
5
5
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Diam.Per VP
2000.
inrVi
OUvv
LJV
40
40
40
46
45
45
45
45
60
60
60
60
60
60
66
56
65
56
65
65
65
85
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
66
65
66
66
66
66
65
66
65
66
70
3000-
ARfV\
4DUU
LPM
45
45
45
45
45
45
50
50
50
50
50
55
55
55
56
55
56
65
60
60
60
60
60
60
65
65
65
65
66
66
65
65
6B
65
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
CJ1J at
OTIrtrt * Anf\f\
cuUvJ • *"""
LTM
43.6
68.2
98.2
133.6
174.4
220.0
272.0
330.0
393.0
460.0
534.0
<*14.0
698.0
788.0
884.0
984.0
1090.0
1320.0
1570.0
1844.0
2138.0
2454.0
2792.0
3152.0
3534.0
3938.0
4364.0
4810.0
5280.0
5770.0
6284.0
6818.0
7374.0
7952.0
8552.0
9174.0
9818.0
10482
11170
11880
12610
13362
14138
•IL/VJU
LTti
87.2
136.4
196.4
267.2
348.8
440.0
544.0
660.0
786.0
920.0
1068.0
1228.0
1396.0
1576.0
1768.0
1968.0
2180.0
2640.0
3140.0
3687.0
4276.0
4908.0
6584.0
6304.0
7068.0
7876.0
8728.0
9620.0
10560
11540
12668
13636
14748
16904
17104
18348
19636
20964
22340
23760
25220
26724
28276
A CSVI
4&UU
uw
98.. i
153.£
221.0
300.6
392,4
497.0
614.0
742.5
864.5
1035.0
1201.6
1381.5
1570.6
1773.0
1989.0
2216.0
2457.0
2970.0
3532.5
4148.1
4810.6
6621.6
6282.0
7092.0
7951.5
8860.5
9819.0
10823
11882
12983
14139
16340
1659ft
1789?
1924S
20642
S20ii
23585
26133
26730
28373
30068
31811
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT 0*' LABOR
DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE-ENGINEERING UNIT
V(,2 80 CENTRE STREET-NEW YORK 13, N.Y. ?L\TF, NO. 13U
Figure 6.22. Resistance and air flow values for exhaust systems
-------
6.94
C. Industrial processes
The City of New York Department of Air Resources combines the appli-
cation and permit evaluation forms as shown in Figure 6.23. TI
form has been designed for the applicant to provide the pertinent
data so that the engineer, in effect, checks the calculations made
by the applicant. This procedure has proven to be a useful tool in
managing the work of the engineer considering these types of equip-
ment.
In general, the use of forms can increase the cost/effectiveness of
the engineering operation by reducing the time for permit applicatio
processing, lessening the tendency for numerical errors, and limitin
the number of calculation sheets in the permit file.
IV. PROTOTYPE COMPUTER ASSISTED CALCULATION PACKAGE
If an agency has a number of computations that must be made frequently,
computer programs can be created to execute these calculations over and
over again. Furthermore, several routines may be combined into one
package and tied together by means of an executive or control program.
The computer program for a prototype of such a system, coded in BASIC,
is listed in Figure 6.24. This type of system may be stored on magnetic
tape, magnetic disk, paper tape or cards (depending upon the computer
system), and activated by the user, as needed. It can be modified to
operate on a batch system, a time-sharing system or a mini-computer.
The package in Figure 6.24 was developed to operate on a mini-computer
with a teletypewriter. It contains four routines, any of which may be
selected for use by the engineer operating the system. The programs
included may be described as follows:
• Exhaust system - find the minimum escape velocity and exhaust
-------
6.95
APC 5 - PA
Jan. 1969
DEPARTMENT OF AIR RESOURCES
51 Astor Place, New York, N.Y. 10003
ROBERT N. RICKLES, P.E., Commissioner
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
_Present Certificate of
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
New
Existing_
Block
Operation No. (if any)
Lot
Application No. & Date_
Fee
Cashier
Premises
Application for Permission to_
Owner's or Agent's Name:
Name:
Borough_
Street:
City, State
for Mailing
I have authorized the P.E. or R.A. named below to
file plans and specifications to do the work
stated on this application. I have read the
entire application and the facts are correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
========================================= SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR OFFICER
TITLE
Complete technical data, plans, etc., describing the proposed installation, alteration or
legalization shall be attached in triplicate to this form.
Authorized Agent:
Name:
Street:
City, State
for Mailing
I certify to the accuracy of
all data and state further that
the equipment, if installed in
accordance with the plans sub-
mitted, will comply with the
requirements of law.
SEAL OF P.E. or R.A.
SIGNATURE OF P.E. OR R.A.
Equipment on Floor No.
Building - Type No. of Floors . . _____
Proximity of nearest building from stack Min. ft. Height above grade ft. On plot plan
show heights of all structures, buildings, etc, within 100 ft. radius of stack. If there are
buildings higher than the stack, submit a letter signed by the owner stating that, he will
comply with all the requirements of the Department in the event a nuisance is caused by his
chimney. =================================================================•====================-=
I certify that I will make the installation of
the equipment as applied for and specified in
this application and in accordance with the plans
filed and approved by the Commissioner of the
Department of Air Resources.
NO WORK PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED UNLESS
INSTALLER IS NAMED. Is Workmen's Comp. &
Disability on file with the Dept. of Air
Resources? YES NO
INSTALLER
Name:
Street:
City, State
for Mailing
LICENSE NO.
CLASS
SIGNATURE
Figure 6.23. Application form for industrial processes
-------
6.96
1. Type of Establishment (product manufactured, process, or service rendered)
(e.g., foundry, lighting fixtures, toys, concrete batching, etc)
2. Type of Operation or Process
(e.g., woodworking, coating, ovens, process ventilation, etc)
3. Material Processed or Used
4. Average Hours Operation per Week_
Ibs/hr
5. Burner(s): (a) Process Mfr.
(For ovens, driers, kilns, process equipment, etc)
(b) Afterburners Mfr.
(a) Type
Type
Model
Fuel Used
Quan./hr_
6. Spray Booths and Dip Tanks
Mfr.
Quan./hr
Model
Btu/hr or gph"
Model
Single Baffle
Handgun Automatfe
Dip Tank Mfr.
Tank Dimensions!Height_
Triple_
Filters_
\ir Atomizing_
Btu/hr or gph
Frontal Opening Height Width_
Water Wash irucrv
CTrless Electrostatic_(CHECK
Model
Width
_Length_
Coating Material (Paint, Lacquer, etc)
Type of stock used_
% Solvents Type(s)_
% Resins Type(s)_
(Max. Gallons per 8 hours)_
(Max. Gallons per hour)
Solids and Pigments Type(s)
Are coatings as used classified as odor free? YES_
7. Exhaust System
NO
8.
Act
a) Fan Mfr. Size
b) Operating conditions CFM H.P- Temp.
Gas Cleaner or Treatment Device
Type Mfr.
Design CFM normal , Gas Temp. (F) Normal
Operating CFM normal , Gas Temp. (F) Inlet
CFM maximum , Gas Temp. (F) Inlet
Overall cleaning or treatment efficiency °
Loading at operating conditions (gr/cu ft) Inlet
:ual emissions (with cleaner or treatment device
and Model
Fan R.P.M.
Model
Max.
Outlet
Outlet
Exit
Lbs/hr
9. Emission Rate Potential
10. Actual Particulate Emissions
Type
_Lhs/br
Quantity (Ib/hr)
(lb/1000 Ib UndiV V.ed Exhaust Gas)
Gaseous contaminants in emission stream
Type Quantity (Ib/hr)
11. Industrial or Environmental Rating
12. Expected Date of Completion
Stack Concentration PPM
Control Apparatus Rating_
Figure 6.23. Application form for industrial processes (continued)
-------
6.97
'1
EXHAUST SYSTEM—FIND THE MINIMUM ESCAPE VELOCITY"
AND EXHAUST RATE TO PREVENT LEAKAGE FROM A HOOD."
10 REM—THIS IS A SAMPLE PERMIT EVALUATION PACKAGE (PEP)
20 REM-WRITTEN IN BASIC AND CONTAINING FOUR SAMPLE ROUTINES.
30 REM
40 REM
50 PRINT "THE FOLLOWING ROUTINES MAY BE SELECTED FOR USE:"
60 PRINT
80 PRINT "
90 PRINT
TOO PRINT
110 PRINT "2 SINGLE STAGE ELECTRICAL PRECIPITATOR—FIND"
120 PRINT " COLLECTION EFFICIENCY AND DUST LOSS FOR UNIFORM"
130 PRINT " GAS VELOCITY AND PEAK VELOCITY."
140 PRINT
150 PRINT "3
160 PRINT "
170 PRINT "
180 PRINT
190 PRINT "4
200 PRINT "
400 PRINT
410 PRINT
420 PRINT
430 PRINT "INPUT THE NUMBER OF THE PROGRAM DESIRED OR TOO TO"
440 PRINT "QUIT."
450 INPUT N
460 IF N=l GOTO 600
470 IF N=2 GOTO 900
480 IF N=3 GOTO 1500
490 IF N=4 GOTO 2000
500 IF N=100 GOTO 5000
510 GOTO 430
520 REM
530 REM
600 PRINT
610 PRINT
ENTER El, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6 TO FIND ESCAPE VELOCITY"
AND EXHAUST RATE FOR A HOOD."
AFTERBURNER—DETERMINE THE DESIGN FEATURES OF A"
DIRECT FLAME AFTERBURNER TO INCINERATE CONTAMINATED"
GASES?"
INCINERATOR—DETERMINE AN INCINERATOR STACK HEIGHT"
TO BURN PAPER."
620 PRINT
630 PRINT "
640 PRINT
650 INPUT El
660 PRINT
670 LET Ql = E1*E2/60
680 LET Q2 = (E4*Q1)/(E3*(460.+E5))
E2, E3, E4, E5, E6
Figure 6.24. Program listing - computer assisted calculated package.
-------
6.98
690 LET VI = 200.*Q2 t (1./3.)
700 LET V2 = V1*E3
710 LET V3 = Q1/(V2*.075*.24)+E6
720 PRINT "RATE OF HEAT GENERATION = ";Q1;" BTU/MIN."
730 PRINT "ESCAPE VELOCITY THRU LEAKAGE ORIFICE = ";V1;" FPM"
740 PRINT "EXHAUST RATE = ";V2;" CFM"
750 PRINT "MEAN HOOD TEMPERATURE = ";V3;" FARH."
760 GOTO 400
770 REM
780 REM
790 REM
900 PRINT
910 PRINT
920 PRINT "ENTER PI, P2, P3, P4, P5 TO FIND THE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY"
AND DUST LOSS FOR A TWO DUCT SINGLE STAGE"
ELECTRICAL PRECIPITATOR WITH A UNIFORM GAS VELOCITY."
P2, P3, P4, P5
" CUBIC FT./SEC."
;A9;" PERCENT"
HR."
930 PRINT "
940 PRINT "
950 PRINT
960 INPUT PI
970 PRINT
980 LET Al = 2.*P1*P2
990 LET A2 = P3/120.
1000 LET A3 = (l.-l./2.71828f(P5*Al/A2))
1002 LET A9 = 100.*A3
1010 LET A4 = ((l.-A3)*(7200.*A2*P4))/7000
1020 PRINT "PLATE AREA OF EACH DUCT = ":A1;" SQ. FT."
1030 PRINT "FLOW RATE PER DUCT = ";A2:
1040 PRINT "COLLECTION EFFICIENCY =
1050 PRINT "LOSS OF DUST = ";A4;" LBS.
1060 PRINT
1070 PRINT "ENTER 1 TO FIND PEAK VELOCITY OR ANOTHER NUMBER"
1080 PRINT " TO RETURN TO CONTROL."
1090 PRINT
1100 INPUT K
1110 IF K<>1 GOTO 400
1120 PRINT
1130 PRINT "ENTER PERCENTAGES TOTALING 100 OF THE TWO DUCTS, P6, P7."
1140 INPUT P6, P7
1150 PRINT
1160 LET Fl = P6/100
1170 LET F2 = P7/100
1180 LET F3 = F1*P3
1190 LET F4 = F2*P3
Figure 6.24. Program listing - computer assisted calculated package (continuec
-------
6.99
1200 LET Rl
1210 LET R2
1220 LET R3
1222 LET R9
1230 LET R4
1232 LET R8
1240 LET R5
1250 LET R6
F3/60.
F4/60.
(1 .-1 ./2. 71828 | (P5*A1/R1))
100.*R3
0 .-1 ./2.71828 | (P5*A1/R2))
100.*R4
(1 .-R3)*(F3*P4*A2*2.))/7000.
(1 .-R4)*(F4*P4*A2*2.))/7000.
1260 PRINT
1270 PRINT "FLOW RATE OF DUCT 1 = ";R1;" CUBIC FT /SEC."
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF DUCT 1 = ";R9;" PERCENT"
LOSS OF DUST FROM DUCT 1 = ";R5;" LBS./HR."
1280 PRINT "
1290 PRINT "
1300 PRINT
1310 PRINT "FLOW RATE OF DUCT 2 = ";R2;" CUBIC FT. /SEC."
1320 PRINT "COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF DUCT 2 = ";R8;" PERCENT"
1330 PRINT "LOSS OF DUST FROM DUCT 2 = ";R6;" LBS./HR."
1340 GOTO 400
1350 REM
1360 REM
1370 REM
1500 PRINT
1510 PRINT
1520 PRINT "ENTER 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09 TO DETERMINE THE"
1530 PRINT " DESIGN FEATURES OF A DIRECT FLAME AFTERBURNER"
1540 PRINT " TO INCINERATE CONTAMINATED GASES."
1550 PRINT
1560 INPUT D1,D2,D3,D4,D5,D6,D7,D8,D9
1570 PRINT
1580 LET HI = 6.0*01/13.1
1590 LET H2 = H1*(D4-D3)
1600 LET H3 = .1*H2
1610 LET H4 = H2+H3
1620 LET H5 = H4/D5
1630 LET G3 = (H5*D6*(D2+460.))/1872000.
1640 LET G4 = (D1*(D2+460.))/31200
1650 LET G5 = G3+G4
1660 LET S4 = 2.*SQR(G5/(D7*3.14159]
1670 LET S5 = 2.*SQR(G5/(D8*3.14159]
1680 LET S6 = S5*D9
1690 LET S7 = S6/D8
Figure 6.24. Program listing - computer assisted calculated package (continued)
-------
6.100
1700 PRINT
1710 PRINT
1720 PRINT "MASS FLOW RATE.OF CONTAMINATED GASES = ";H1;" LBS./HR."
1730 PRINT "HEAT REQUIRED = ";H2;" BTU/HR."
1740 PRINT "HEAT LOSSES = ";H3;" BTU/HR."
1750 PRINT "TOTAL HEAT REQUIRED = ";H4;" BTU/HR."
1760 PRINT "REQ. NATURAL GAS FOR BURNER = ";H5;" CUBIC FT./HR."
1770 PRINT "VOL. RATE OF GAS BURNER COMB. = ";G3;" CUBIC FT./SEC." ,
1780 PRINT "VOL. RATE OF CONTAM. GASES = ";G4;" CUBIC FT./SEC."
1790 PRINT "TOTAL VOL. RATE OF GASES = ";G5;" CUBIC FT./SEC."
1800 PRINT "DIAM. OF AFTERBURNER THROAT = ";S4;" FT."
1810 PRINT "DIAM. OF COMBUSTION CHAMBER = ";S6;" FT."
1820 PRINT "LENGTH OF COMBUSTION CHAMBER = ";S6;" FT."
1830 PRINT "RETENTION TIME OF GASES IN CHAMBER = ";S7;" SEC."
1840 GOTO 400
1850 REM
1860 REM
1870 REM
2000 PRINT
2010 PRINT
2020 PRINT "ENTER B1,B2,B3 TO DETERMINE THE STACK HEIGHT OF A"
2030 PRINT " PAPER BURNING INCINERATOR."
2040 PRINT
2050 INPUT B1,B2,B3
2060 PRINT
2070 LET Wl = B1/(7.644*(1./(460.+B2)-1./(460.+B3)))
2080 PRINT "INCINERATOR STACK HEIGHT = ";W1;" FT."
2090 GOTO 400
2100 REM
2110 REM
2120 REM
5000 STOP
5010 END
Figure 6.24, Program listing - computer assisted calculated package (continued)
-------
6.101
rate to prevent leakage from a hood;
• Single stage electrical precipitator—find collection
efficiency and dust loss for uniform gas velocity and
peak velocity; '
• Afterburner—determine the design features of a direct flame
afterburner to incinerate contaminated gases; and
• Incinerator—determine an incinerator stack height to burn
paper.
Figure 6.25 contains the inputs with the appropriate units, necessary
for each of the above to operate correctly. A flowchart of the
system appears in Figure 6.26. The interactive execution of this
system is demonstrated in Figure 6.27.
-------
6.102
COMPUTER ASSISTED CALCULATED PACKAGE
1) EXHAUST SYSTEM
El Fuel Use Rate Gal/Hr
E2 Heating Value BTU/Gal
E3 Total Open Area of Orifice Sq Ft
E4 Vertical Distance Above the Hood Face Ft
E5 Average Temperature of Air Inside
the Hood Deg Fah
E6 Average Temperature of the Ambient Air Deg Fah
2) SINGLE STAGE ELECTRICAL PRECIPITATOR
PI Length of the Plates Ft
P2 Width of the Plates Ft
P3 Velocity of the gas through the ducts CFM
P4 Grains of Dust per cubic foot
P5 Drift Velocity FPS
*P6 Percentage of Gas Through Duct 1
*P7 Percentage of Gas Through Duct 2
* Only if peak velocity option selected
3) AFTERBURNER
Dl Rate of Discharge of Contaminated Gases CFM
D2 Required Incineration Temperate of Gases Fah
D3 Enthalpy of Gas at Discharge Temperatures BTU/Lb
D4 Enthalpy of Gas at Incineration Temp. BTU/Lb
D5 Heat available at incineration temp, from
burning one cubic foot of natural gas ~
with theoretical air BTU/Ft
D6 Products of Combustion per cubic foot of 3
natural gas with theoretical air Ft
D7 Throat Velocity Ft/Sec
D8 Combustion Chamber Velocity Ft/Sec
D9 Ratio of Afterburner Combustion Chamber
Length to Diameter
4) INCINERATOR
Bl Water Column Draft Inches
B2 Ambient Temperature Fah
B3 Stack Temperature Fah
Figure 6.25. Input sheet for prototype system
-------
6.103
E SELECT
IQUIPMENT
ROUTINE
EXHAUST \Y
SYSTEM
INPUT
EXHAUST
SYSTEM
DATA
CALC. RATE
OF HEAT
GENERATION
CALCULATE
ESCAPE
VELOCITY
CALCULATE
EXHAUST
RATE
CALC. MEAN
HOOD
TEMPERATURE
OUTPUT
RESULTS
Figure 6.26. Flowchart - computer assisted calculated package.
-------
6.104
1
INPUT
PRECIPI-
TATOR
DATA
CALC. PLATE
AREA OF
EACH DUCT
CALC. THE
TOTAL
FLOW RATE
CALCULATE
COLLECTION
EFFICIENCY
CALCULATE
LOSS OF
DUST
OUTPUT
RESULTS
INPUT %
/CAPACITY OF/
EACH
DUCT
CALC. FLOW
RATE OF
EACH DUCT
CALC. COLL.
EFFICIENCY
OF EACH
DUCT
CALC. DUST
LOSS OF
EACH DUCT
OUTPUT
RESULTS
Figure 6.26. Flowchart - computer assisted calculated package (continued),
-------
6.105
INPUT
AFTER-
BURNER
DATA
CALCULATE
REQUIRED
NATURAL
GAS
6.26. Flowchart - computer assisted calculated package (continued)
-------
6.106
PDP-11 BASIC, VERSION 007A
*0
READY
OLD
READY
RUN
THE FOLLOWING ROUTINES MAY BE SELECTED FOR USE:
*
1 EXHAUST SYSTEM-FIND THE MINIMUM ESCAPE VELOCITY
AND EXHAUST RATE TO PREVENT LEAKAGE FROM A HOOD.
2 SINGLE STAGE ELECTRICAL PRECIPITATOR— FIND
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY AND DUST LOSS FOR UNIFORM
GAS VELOCITY AND PEAK VELOCITY.
3 AFTERBURNER-DETERMINE THE DESIGN FEATURES OF A
DIRECT FLAME AFTERBURNER TO INCINERATE CONTAMINATED
GASES.
4 INCINERATOR— DETERMINE AN INCINERATOR STACK HEIGHT
TO BURN PAPER.
INPUT THE NUMBER OF THE PROGRAM DESIRED OR TOO to
QUIT.
ENTER P1,P2,P3,P4,P5 TO FIND THE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
AND DUST LOSS FOR A TWO DUCT SINGLE STAGE
ELECTRICAL PRECIPITATOR WITH A UNIFORM GAS VELOCITY
712,8.3600, 2,. 38
PLATE AREA OF EACH DUCT = 192 SQ. FT.
FLOW RATE PER DUCT = 30 CUBIC FT. /SEC.
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY = 91.21389 PERCENT
LOSS OF DUST = 5.422284 LBS. HR.
ENTER 1 TO FIND PEAK VELOCITY OR ANOTHER NUMBER
TO RETURN TO CONTROL.
ENTER PERCENTAGES TOTALING 100 OF THE TWO DUCTS, P6.P7.
775,25
Figure 6.27. Prototype equipment evaluation package
-------
6.107
FLOW RATE OF DUCT 1 = 45 CUBIC FT./SEC.
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF DUCT 1 = 80.23648 PERCENT
LOSS OF DUST FROM DUCT 1 = 9.147688 LBS./HR
FLOW RATE OF DUCT 2 = 15 CUBIC FT./SEC.
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF DUCT 2 = 99.22804 PERCENT
LOSS OF DUST FROM DUCT 2 = .1191019 LBS./HR.
INPUT THE NUMBER OF THE PROGRAM DESIRED OR 100 TO
QUIT.
ENTER PT,P2,P3,P4,P5 TO FIND THE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
AND DUST LOSS FOR A TWO DUCT SINGLE STAGE
ELECTRICAL PRECIPITATOR WITH A UNIFORM GAS VELOCITY.
?12,8.3600.2..38
PLATE AREA OF EACH DUCT = 192 SQ. FT.
FLOW RATE PER DUCT = 30 CUBIC FT./SEC,
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY = 91.21389 PERCENT
LOSS OF DUST = 5.422284 LBS. HR.
ENTER 1 TO FIND PEAK VELOCITY OR ANOTHER NUMBER
TO RETURN TO CONTROL.
ft
INPUT THE NUMBER OF THE PROGRAM DESIRED OR 100 TO
QUIT.
?4
ENTER B1,B2,B3 TO DETERMINE THE STACK HEIGHT OF A
PAPER BURNING INCINERATOR.
?.17.60.900
INCINERATOR STACK HEIGHT = 18.72368 FT.
INPUT THE NUMBER OF THE PROGRAM DESIRED OR 100 TO
QUIT.
?J
ENTER E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6 TO FIND ESCAPE VELOCITY
AND EXHAUST RATE FOR A HOOD.
?30J40000.141.11,150.80
Figure 6.27. Prototype equipment evaluation package (continued)
-------
6.108
RATE OF HEAT GENERATION = 70000 BTU/MIN.
ESCAPE VELOCITY THRU LEAKAGE ORIFICE = 415.2828 FPM
EXHAUST RATE = 58554.87 CFM
MEAN HOOD TEMPERATURE = 146.4144 FAH.
INPUT THE NUMBER OF THE PROGRAM DESIRED OR 100 TO
QUIT.
?3
ENTER D1,D2,D3,D4,D5,D6,D7,D8,D9 TO DETERMINE THE
DESIGN FEATURES OF A DIRECT FLAME AFTERBURNER
TO INCINERATE CONTAMINATED GASES.
71000,1200.21.6,287.2,721.3.11.45.20.12.2
MASS FLOW RATE OF CONTAMINATED GASES = 4580.153 LBS./HR.
HEAT REQUIRED = 1216489 BTU/HR.
HEAT LOSSES = 1216489.9 BTU/HR.
TOTAL HEAT REQUIRED = 1338137 BTU/HR.
REQ. NATURAL GAS FOR BURNER = 1855.175 CUBIC FT./HR.
VOL. RATE OF GAS BURNER COMB. = 18.83617 CUBIC FT./SEC.
VOL. RATE OF CONTAM. GASES = 53.20513 CUBIC FT./SEC.
TOTAL VOL. RATE OF GASES = 72.04129 CUBIC FT./SEC.
DIAM. OF AFTERBURNER THROAT = 2.141564 FT.
DIAM. OF COMBUSTION CHAMBER = 2.764747 FT.
LENGTH OF COMBUSTION CHAMBER = 5.529494 FT.
RETENTION TIME OF GASES IN CHAMBER = .4607911 SEC.
INPUT THE NUMBER OF THE PROGRAM DESIRED OR 100 TO
QUIT.
7100
STOP AT LINE 5000
READY
Underline indicates
user inputs.
Figure 6.27. Prototype equipment evaluation package
(continued)
-------
6.109
REFERENCES
1. Personal contact with Tim J. Brawder, Ralph M. Parsons Co. Los Angeles,
Calif. April 1972. 6
2. Engineering Analysis of Emissions Control Technology for Sulfuric Acid
Manufacturing Processes, Volume I. USDHEW, PHS, NAPCA. March 1970.
Contract CPA 22-69-81.
3. Ibid., p. IV-51.
4. Ibid., p. III-3.
5. Ibid., p. III-9.
6. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollution. USDHEW, PHS, CPEHS,
Washington D.C. January 1969, p. 72.
7. Cuffe, S.T., R.W. Gerstle, A.A. Orning and C.H. Schwartz. Air Pollution
Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants, Report No. 2, JAPCA Volume 15,
Number 2. February 1965.
8. Steam: Its Generation and Use. The Babcock and Wilcox Company, New York,
37th Edition. 1963, p. 4-1 - 4-12.
9. McGraw, M.J. and R.L. Duprey. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. EPA. April 1971 (preliminary document).
10. Ramsdell, R. Design Criteria for Precipitators. Presented at the
American Power Conference, April 1968.
11. Oglesby, S., Jr. and G.B. Nichols. A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator
Technology, Part II - Applications Areas. NAPCA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
August 1970. Contract CPA 22-69-73.
12. Ibid., p. 370.
13. Ibid., p. 373.
W. Ibid., p. 376.
15. Gadomski, R.R. , M.P. David and G. A. Blahut. Evaluation of Emissions and
Control Technologies in the Graphic Arts Industries. USDHEW, PHS, NAPCA.
August 1970. Contract No. CPA 22-69-72.
16. Ibid., p. 94.
-------
6.110
17. Ibid., p. 94.
18. Danielson, J.A. (ed.). Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Cincinnati,
USDHEW, PHS. The National Center for Air Pollution Control and the
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. PHS No. 999-AP-40.
1967, p. 176.
19. Ibid., p. 176.
20. Ibid., p. 176.
21. Oglesby, op. cit., p. 738.
22. Danielson, op. cit., p. 879.
23. Ibid., p. 871.
24. Oglesby, op. cit., p. 751.
25. Ibid., p. 166.
26. Ibid., p. 746.
27. Jorgensen, R. (ed.). Fan Engineering, 7th Edition. Buffalo Forge Co.,
Buffalo, New York. April 1970.
28. Danielson, op. cit., p. 47-59.
29. Billings, C.E. and J. Wilder. Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology.
USDHEW, NAPCA. December 1970. Contract No. CPA 22-69-38.
30. Federal Register. Volume 36, No. 247. December 23, 1971, p. 24880.
31. Danielson, op. cit., p. 8811.
32. Ibid., p. 328.
33. Air Pollution Control Guidelines for Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. Kentucky
Air Pollution Control Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky (unpublished).
34. Danielson, op. cit., p. 337.
35. Billings, op. cit., p. 3-34 and 4-19.
36. Federal Register. Volume 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971, p. 15496.
-------
6.111
37. Schwartz, H.E., L.E. Kalian, and A. Stein. Controlling Atmospheric
Contaminants in the Smelting and Refining of Copper-Base Alloys. JAPCA,
Vol. 5, No. 1. May 1955.
38. Federal Register. Volume 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971, p. 15496.
39. Danielson, op. cit., p. 85-86.
40. Federal Register^ Volume 36, No. 158. August 14, 1971, p. 15496.
41. Danielson, op. cit., p. 265.
42. Ibid., p. 882.
43. Ibid.
44. Jorgensen, op. cit., p. 71.
45. Industrial Ventilation. Lansing, Michigan, Committee on Industrial
Ventilation, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
1972, p. 6-31 - 6-35.
46. Jorgensen, op. cit., p. 232.
147. Danielson, op. cit., p. 615.
48. Ibid., p. 642.
49. Rules and REgulations of the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control
District. August 31, 1971.
50. Danielson, op. cit., p. 613.
51. Ibid., p. 612.
52. Ibid., p. 614.
53. Ibid., p. 211.
54. Ibid., p. 774.
55. Ibid., p. 175.
56. Bixby, D.W., D.L. Rucker, and S.L. Tisdale. Phosphate Fertilizers
Properties and Processes, Technical Bulletin Number 8. The Sulfur
Institute, Washington D.C. 1966.
-------
6.112
57. Heller, A.N., S.T. Cuffe, and D.R. Goodwin. Inorganic Chemical Industry.
In: Air Pollution, Vol. Ill, A.C. Stern (ed.). New York City, Academic
Press, 1968.
58. Personal Contact, Brea Chemical Division of Union Oil Co., Brea, Calif.
April 1972.
59. Balakrishnan, S., D.E. Williamson, and R.W. Okey. State of the Art Review
on Sludge Incinerator Practice. Advanced Waste Treatement Research Lab-
oratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1970, p. 63. Contract No. 14-12-499.
60. Ibid. p. 99-101.
-------
CHAPTER 7
ENGINEERING INSPECTION OF EQUIPMENT
FOR CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE
I. INTRODUCTION
Engineering inspection is the phase of the permit processing cycle in which
the equipment is observed in operation and evaluated against agency
standards. The product of the inspection is a report of sufficient detail
which provides:
• Data for determining whether or not to issue or deny a certificate
to operate.
• Data for determining the need for source testing.
• Verification of data for source registration.
• Verification of data for emissions inventory.
• Data for court or appeals board action.
• Data for inspection personnel to evaluate operating procedures
relative to compliance with current standards.
• Data for evaluating possible nuisance problems.
• Verification of operating schedules of equipment.
Experienced personnel may readily observe these details in making a
pass/fail evaluation; however, care must be taken to record all pertinent
data in the inspection report. Figure 7.1 is a flow diagram depicting
the steps of the inspection process.
II. ENGINEERING INSPECTION REPORT
The engineering inspection report for a certificate to operate includes the
following:
• Name of the owner/operator.
• Address, UTM grid location and telephone number at the equipment
location.
-------
Office
Issue CO*
Field
*CO = Certificate to Operate
1. Review plans, specifications and evaluation.
2. Make checklist.
3. Advise owner/operator of time of inspection.
4. Interview operator.
5. Note weather and other pertinent local conditions.
6. Check equipment to verify description.
7. ©bserve operating cycle.
a. Check materials charged to process.
b. Check operators log.
c. Note points of emission and estimate losses.
8. Prepare report of inspection.
9. Conclusions and recommendations.
a. Pass
b. Fail; reinspect after system modified
c. Stack test.
(1) Pass
(2) Fail
Figure 7.1. Flow chart of engineering inspection for certificate to operate
-------
7.3
• Description of weather and conditions surrounding source.
• Description of the equipment process.
• Operating schedule:
1. Hours per day
2. Shift or hours of the day normally in operation
3. Days per week
• Quantitative and qualitative description of emissions.
• Description of point(s) of release of emissions.
• Request for source test(s) when indicated.
• Conclusions and recommendations.
To gather this information, the engineer should use as many practical aids as
possible. These might include preprinted inspection forms, checklists,
photography, and portable sampling or velocity measuring equipment.
A. Preparing for the Inspection
The engineer assigned to inspect a piece of equipment or a process for a
certificate to operate may not have handled the application for the
permit to construct. In this case, he may not be familiar with special
operating conditions or procedures required for acceptable operations.
The inspection should always be preceded by a thorough review of the
process, plans, specifications and engineering evaluation. The prepara-
tion of a checklist containing operating procedures, design features and
expected emission points is useful. Checklist items may include:
• Operational procedures.
1. Batch or continuous process.
2. Type and quantity of materials charged.
3. Production rate.
4. Specific phases of the operation which must be observed.
5. Sequence of operations.
-------
7.4
6. Type and quantity of fuel(s) used.
7. Process conditions such as temperature and pressure.
• Design features.
1. Process flow diagram.
2. Materials of construction.
3. Fan make and model number.
4. Motor horsepower.
5. Automatic controls and recorders and their placement.
6. Seals on doors or vessels.
7. Safety (pressure relief) system.
• Expected emission points.
1. Exhaust stack.
2. Hoods and pickup points.
3. Doors and ports.
4. Product discharge points.
5. Materials loading or charging points.
6. Fugitive dust.
7. Vents, relief valves.
B. Basic Information Recorded During the Inspection
The recording of basic information during an inspection is important foi
legal as well as engineering considerations. This information will be
necessary to establish the prevailing conditions during the inspection
in the event that court or appeals board action results from these obsei
vations. Therefore, all data which may affect visible and other emissit
and operation of the equipment must be recorded. The information to be
noted includes:
• Time and date of inspection including elapsed time.
• Verification of address of premises, telephone number and
location of equipment.
• Name and title of company representative contacted. Names of
other individuals who may be responsible for the operation of
the equipment.
-------
7.5
• Normal operating time, including time of day, hours per day, and
days per week. (Is this different from the time of inspection?)
• Is there an operations log, what is recorded, and who is respons-
ible for its maintenance?
• Local weather and other conditions which might affect inspection
results (estimates should be checked with data from nearest air/
weather monitoring station).
1. Wind speed and direction.
2. Estimate of cloud cover in percent.
3. Temperature.
4. Relative humidity.
5. Estimate of visibility.
6. Precipitation.
7. Other unusual circumstances such as blowing dust, etc.
C. Description of Equipment
The primary purpose of the equipment description is to identify an
installation as the one for which a permit was requested and to deter-
mine if the equipment was installed according to the plans submitted
with the application for the permit to construct. The essence of the
description is to briefly identify the equipment by its function,
capacity or throughput, manufacturer and serial number. This descrip-
tion will appear on the certificate to operate.
During the inspection, the engineer should note any significant
deviation from the drawings submitted with the application. Discrep-
ancies such as a model number that does not match, a missing hood, or
no provisions for stack testing, should be noted on the drawing.
(Discrepancies which adversely affect the emissions from the equipment
or violate agency standards may be cause to deny the certificate to
operate.) It must be emphasized that during the field inspection the
engineer must verify the equipment description along with any changes
or modifications found during the inspection.
-------
7.6
Package units such as boilers, incinerators and spray booths may be
described by a generic name, manufacturer and model number. Significan
changes or additions to the standard design will take the equipment out
of the class of package units, thereby requiring a more detailed
description.
Large installations, such as steam generators in power plants, may be
described by manufacturer, type of fuel used, standby fuel, and output
capacity. For example, the installation may be described as a B&W
pulverized coal fired boiler, with liquid ash removal rated at 930,000
pounds per hour of steam at 2170 psi.
D. Process Description and Discussion
If the inspection of the equipment follows the issuance of a permit to
construct, a detailed process description is part of the permit
file. The engineer verifies the process description during the
inspection. If the inspection is being made without benefit of a
permit to construct, the engineer writes a complete description from
the data gathered during the inspection. A flow diagram should be
included whenever there are enough steps in the process to warrant this
effort.
The discussion of the process should include the following:
1. An overall statement of the product or function of the equipment
or process. For example: A hot mix asphaltic concrete batching
plant operating at a capacity of 350,000 Ibs/hr.
2. Concise statement of the elements of the process including a flow
chart (Figure 7.2).
a. The sequential or parallel steps of the process.
b. Nature of the process steps or unit operations such as size
reduction, thermal drying, or materials handling.
c. Comparison of production rates or throughput with design capac:
-------
r~r
Aggregate Bins
Cold
Elevator
Primary
Collector
Fines Return
^
Hot
Elevator
O
Screen
Hot Aggregate
Storage
Mixer
Product
Discharge
1
Exhaust Stack
Secondary
Collector
Asphaltic Cement
Mineral Filler
Air Pollution. Control System
Flow of Material
C/ Point of Emissions
Figure 7.2. Schematic of hot asphalt batch plant
-------
7.8
d. Sequence of introduction of materials to the process including
the type and quantity of material used.
e. Statement of whether the process is batch or continuous.
f. Air pollution control system description.
(1) Points of emission.
(2) Estimate of effectiveness of the air pollution control systi
(3) Statement regarding apparent maintenance & housekeeping (go<
(4) Controls, meters, recording equipment and their function.
g. General comment of the quality of air pollution control at the
equipment location.
h. Anticipated effects of the use of standby fuels, e.g., increasec
production of SO , NO and particulates.
X X
For example, the following is a description of a hot asphalt batch plan;
using the foregoing procedure:
1. Aggregate from three storage bins is delivered by a belt conveyor
to the boot of a bucket elevator which discharges into an oil fired
rotary dryer. Hot gases from the products of combustion flow
countercurrent to the flow of the aggregate in the dryer. The
aggregate is discharged to the "hot" bucket elevator which deposits
it into a holding bin. The bin contains sizing screens, the hot
aggregate storage hopper and a pug mill for mixing the aggregate
with the asphaltic cement. Filler material can be added to the
mixer when required. The asphaltic cement is pumped to the mixer 01
demand. The finished batch of asphaltic concrete is then dischargee
to trucks for delivery to the job site.
2. Operations which can cause the emissions of air contaminants are:
a. Materials handling equipment:
(1) belt conveyor
(2) clam shell loader
-------
7.9
(3) bucket elevators
b. Screens and classifiers.
c. Rotary drier.
(1) dust
(2) smoke from fuel combustion
d. Disposal of collected dust and fines.
3. Materials charged to the process (worst case), percent by weight
.for lib (Asphalt Institute Classification) surface mix:
70% - 3/8" (9.51 mm)
20% - No. 4 (4.76 mm)
Aggregate
5% - No. 8 (2.38 mm)
1% - No. 200 (0.074 mm)
4% - Asphalt
The aggregate is introduced through the vibrating screens to the
mixer, the filler and asphalt are introduced at the mixer.
4. This is a batch process. Dried aggregate is collected in hoppers
above the mixer and is added to the mixer with the asphaltic
cement and filler to form a specified weight of asphaltic concrete;
the batch is mixed and discharged to a truck.
5. Dust is generated at the conveyor belt, the boot and head of the
bucket elevators, the rotary drier, and the vibrating screens.
The dust collection system consists of an exhaust system with pickup
points at the boot and head of the cold and hot bucket elevators,
the inlet and exit of the rotary drier, and the vibrating screen.
There are two dust collectors in series. The primary collector is
a cyclone and the secondary collector is a scrubber.
Dust pickup at the elevators was good. The housing surrounding
the elevators was tight and in good repair. The gases from the
drier were also virtually 100% vented by the exhaust system except
-------
7.10
for an occasional puff due to a buildup of gas in the drier. The
duct work, cyclone and scrubber showed no signs of leakage and the
entire system has been properly maintained. The rate of water to tl
scrubber (recorded in GPM) is in the acceptable range for the desig:
air-to-water ratio in the scrubber. The observation of emissions f-
the scruh>ber exhaust stack showed no visible dust carryover after t
steam plume dissipated. The burners at the rotary drier were those
specified and appeared to be clean. The controls are fully auto-
matic (name and model number).
6. The problem of dust from truck traffic has been minimized by paving
the main entrance and exit road and by wetting the unpaved areas.
Dust appears to settle within plant boundaries.
E. Detail Points of Emissions
During the inspection, the engineer must note all emissions (such
as leaks and fugitive dust) which are not readily found in the
study of equipment drawings. The following general guidelines describe
areas of possible emissions but the engineer must remember that check
lists are only guides and are not intended to replace the need for a
careful step-by-step inspection of the equipment or process.
^
1. Dust and fume emissions.
a. Materials handling equipment.
(1) Loading
(2) Dumping
b. Charging doors or ports.
c. Discharging doors or ports and pouring operations.
d. Holding vessels or hearths.
e. Fugitive dust from disposal of collected materials.
-------
7.11
2. Vapors and gases.
a. Steam leaks from flanges, valves, or other fittings.
b. Spills.
c. Odors.
i
d. Process charging and discharging.
e. Vents, relief systems.
An example of reporting points of emissions is found in the description
of the hot asphalt batch plant in Section D.
F. Estimate of Emissions and Discussion of Observations
The data gathered during the inspection must include an estimate of
the emissions based upon the operating conditions at the time of the
inspection. It is mandatory that the observation be made when the
equipment is operating under circumstances that will provide the
severest test to the air pollution control system. In hot asphalt
batching plants this can occur when a mix is run which requires the
greatest quantity of fine material; in an electric steel furnace it
can take place during an oxygen blow; or in rendering plants it can
happen when the cooker is vented to atmosphere for any ...reason.
Emissions estimates without source testing are subjective. Except for
reading opacity and using continuous stack monitors, the engineer must
rely upon his experience and training with similar installations to
estimate the quantity of contaminants released. The manual, "Compilation
3
of Air Pollution Emission Factors" contains data which can be directly
applied to the overall estimate of emissions from many processes.
Material balances also give an indication of their magnitude.
The engineer must estimate the efficiency of capture of contaminants
at the point of emission and for the system which conveys the pollutants
to the air cleaning device. The estimate of emissions therefore fall
into two broad categories.
-------
7.12
1. Are the emissions captured at the point of generation? An estimate
of dust pickup, for example, would state that the indraft at the
hood is 95% to 100% effective. ' This means that there is virtually
no dust escaping the hood. If the effectiveness of the hood is
decreased because of cross drafts or its location relative to the
source, the addition of shrouds or permanent curtains may increase
its effectiveness to where the pickup is acceptable.
2. Does the air pollution control system meet 'the regulations or standa:
of the control agency? If the basic equipment is operating at the m<
critical conditions for emitting air contaminants, and the air
pollution control system is in full operation, are there visible
emissions emanating from the exhaust stack. Unless it is obvious th;
the emissions from the equipment do not exceed the allowable emissioi
(say >10% opacity) a source test should be requested.
There will be instances when the observation of emissions will be
all that is necessary to determine if the equipment can meet the
agency standards. These may include the inspection of small
incinerators or package boilers where the opacity or Ringelmann
number of emissions is recorded and a pass/fail decision can be
made; grinders, shot blasting, sand blasting, or woodworking
equipment venting to a mechanical collector where any visible
emission'from the collector may be cause for denial of a permit;
and paint spray booths where the carryover of pigment is exhausted
or solvent odors are noticeable at the property line may be cause
for denial. In some of these examples, operational changes such
as decreased charging rates for incinerators, use of "lighter oil"
for boilers and change in the type of paint used for spraying, may
be all that is needed to allow issuance of a certificate to operate.
G. Recommendations for Source Testing
A recommendation for a source test should detail the specific operating
conditions under which the equipment is to be tested so that appropriate
-------
7.13
4
test procedures may be prepared. Basic instructions for the test should
include the points to be tested, anticipated contaminants for which the
test is run, accessability of test points (scaffolding), and availability
of electric power near the test point. Provisions should be made for
portable hoods, or other specialty items where the equipment to be tested
does not have an exhaust system. In summary, sufficient data should -be
made available to the team to avoid surprises during the test. Operating
conditions which must be defined are:
1. Basic equipment.
a. Description of the type, quantity, and rate of material to be
processed by the equipment during the test.
b. Type, quantity and rate of usage of fuel.
c. Phase of operation during which the source test is to be
conducted (for example, chlorine injection in an aluminum
furnace) if the process is not continuous.
2. Air Pollution Control System.
a. Pressure drop across the control device.
b. For scrubbers - water rate.
c. For electrostatic precipitators - current and voltage reading,
rapping frequency, operating temperature, gas velocity.
d. For baghouses - shaking frequency.
e. Duration and frequency of control device downtime, if any,
during test.
The air pollution control system must be in operation during the test.
If it is desirable, samples may be taken at the inlet to the air pollu-
tion control device as well as the outlet to confirm collection
efficiencies.
-------
7.14
H. Conclusions and Recommendations
The conclusions and recommendations should be a brief statement of the
decision reached as a result of the inspection. The options are:
• Recommendation to issue a certificate to operate.
• Recommendation to deny a certificate to operate.
• Recommendation for a source test.
• Recommendation for one or more additional inspections.
• Recommendation for surveillance by field enforcement personnel
for a specified time.
The recommendation for approval should include the agency standards
which the operation of the equipment must meet (process weight, opacit'
nuisance, etc.) and any conditions of operation which must be followed
to meet the standards (natural gas firing only, specified charging rati
etc.). These conditions should be clearly stated on the certificate t<
operate.
The recommendation for denial of a permit to operate must include the
agency standards which the equipment could not meet; specifically,
the phases of the operation which were unacceptable.
The recommendation for a source test is covered in Section G above.
The recommendation for additional inspections is usually occasioned by
some minor problem in the operation. This may be equipment breakdown
or malfunction during the inspection, or inability to observe the part
of the operation most critical to air pollution control. In this case
the reinspection should be scheduled as soon as possible when all of
the conditions can be met.
-------
7.15
The recommendation for surveillance must include a description of what
the enforcement officer must observe and inspection frequency. This is
usually suggested when the engineer suspects that there are instances
when the operating conditions are drastically different than those he
witnessed. This recommendation should be followed by a discussion with
the area inspector to familiarize him with the operational details he
will be expected to evaluate.
These inspection decisions constitute the final step in the permit
application system and are the result of all of the evaluation steps
that preceded the inspection. It is therefore necessary to emphasize
the need for clear, concise statements of the facts which led to the
final decision.
I. Field Inspection Forms
There are generally two approaches to recording data in the field. One
is to make rough notes in a bound notebook or pad; the other involves
the use of printed forms. When using the notebook it is possible to
omit some information unless each item required for the report has been
identified in the notebook before the inspection. When using a printed
form, unless it is properly designed, there often isn't enough room to
enter all of the data. There is no best way to prepare inspection
reports for content and cost effectiveness. There are, however, some
points to be considered in formulating a system in which printed forms
may be desirable.
"The significant relationship is for the form to serve the system, not
for the system to serve the form." Effective forms design includes
the following:
• Brief, descriptive and distinctive title.
• Form number for identification and general reference.
-------
7.16
• Ruling to guide, divide or unify.
• Convenient location of instructions—top, bottom or reverse
side of form or additional sheet attached.
• Spacing—for longhand or typewriter.
• Filing considerations—punched for binder, legal size, top
punched, margins.
Examples of printed forms are those used by the Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District for field inspection reporting. A
general form employed for inspections of all sources of dust and
fumes is shown in Figure 7.3. A form used to record opacity and
Ringelmann numbers is shown in Figure 7.4. Figures 7.5 and 7.6
are forms specifically designed for spray booth and vapor degreaser
inspections.
The number of types of field report forms required by an agency will
be a function of the volume of specific types of equipment requiring
inspections and permits. Special purpose forms usually evolve from a
general form when the need is recognized over a number of years. It
is therefore advisable to design a general purpose form initially.
Special purpose forms can be added after a trend has been established
demonstrating their need.
-------
7.17
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. DISTRICT - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
434 SOUTH SAN PEDRO STREET. Los ANGELES. CALIF. 90013. MADISON 9-47H
ENGINEERING DlVISION—FIELD REPORT
DATE Of INSPECTION
AILING ADDRESS
PERMIT APPL. NO.
OUIPMENT LOCATION (ADDRESS)
A.P.C.D. ZONE NO.
EASON PERMIT
s REQUIRED:
NE* CON-
STRUCTION
CHANGE OF
OWNERSHIP
CHANGE OF
LESSEE
CHANGE OF
LOCATION
EQUIPMENT
ALTERATION
ATE CONSTHUC-
ION AUTHOR I 2E D:
TIME SPENT
MAKING INSPECTION:
SUAL OPERATING SCHEDULE
OR THIS EQUIPMENT:
ESTIMATEO
COST:
BASIC
ECU IPMENT:
A.P.C.
EQUIPMENT: J
AMES & TITLES OF PERSONS
ONTACTED BY ENGINEER:
OR DUST & FUMc
ROBLEMS CflLY:
PROCESS'
«EI GUT (S)
LBS.
/HR.
ALLOWED
LOSSES:
LBS. ESTIMATED
/HR. LOSSES:
LBS
/HR.
iFFICIAL EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION. 'CALCULATION Of PROCESS KEIGHTls). PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS:
APPROVE FOR PERMIT SUBJECT
TO .rounlTIONS LISTED EELOB
REVIEWING ENGINEER:
( ) | CONCUR KITH RECOMMENDATIONS
( ) 1 00 NOT CONCUR WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
( ) SEE COMMENTS ON ATTACHED PAGE
SIGNATURE.
PAGE 1 OF.
.«-AG£S
a
Figure 7.3. Field report form, dust and fumes,.Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District
-------
7.18
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
434 SOUTH 3AN PEDRO STREET, LOS ANGELES. CALIF. 90013 MADISON 9-4711
ENGINEERING DlVISION—FIELD REPORT
K7MT"oF APPLICANT °»TE OF INSPECTION
EQUIPMENT LOCATION (ADDRESS) PERMIT APPL. NO.
SOURCE OF MR TYPES OF AIR
CONTAMINANTS CONTAMINANTS
POINT(S) OF POINT OF
OBSERVATION DISCHARGE
•EATHER
"'NO "OURS OF FROM T0
08SERVATI ON :
OBSERVATIONS OF VIS
TIME
'FROM
TO
•COIOK CODE:
"B" MEANS
"H" MEANS
— MEANS
MEANS
BLACK
»H 1 TE
'INTERVAL
M IN.
UTE S
SEC-
ONDS
i
1. ORAC 1 TY
OR
RlNGEL-
UAM, NO.
™ T°
COLOR
• (SEE
CODE
'•
(OR CfAC!
BLE AIR CONTAMINANTS
Of DISCHARGE Of AIR CONTAMINANTS OF DENSITY
m r.f cat GRFMTR
[_^"^ — _._r::.".jj.:z IO-SOUIUB mtiii— ...
Figure 7.4. Field report form, opacity reading, Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District
-------
7.19
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL D IS IK Id' - UUUNlY OF LUb
434 SOUTH SAN .PEDRO STREET. LOS ANGELES. CALIF. 90013. MADISON 9-4711
SPRAY BOOTH—FIELD REPORT
NAME OF CORPORATION, COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL OWNER THAT IS
APPEARS ON BUSINESS LICENSE. PERMIT TO BE ISSUED TO:
DATE OF INSPECTION
Ecu
A.P.C.D. ZONE NO.
IS RE OU I R E 0 :
n CHANGE OFT
OWNERSHIP!
ALTERA- i
TION I
CHANGE OF
CHANGE OF
FORMER PERMITTEE: (EXPLAIN)
FORMER PERMIT no:
BOOTH
MODEL NUMBER:
NAMES & TITLES OF PERSONS CONTACTED:
BOOTH DIMENSIONS:
WIDE X
HIGH X
DEEP.
BOOTH TYPE:
FLOOR i _| BENCH
AUTOMOTIVE
NAME ALL TYPES
ENAMEL:
MATERIAL SPRAYED:
GALS. /DAY. ADDED THINNER:
GALS. /DAY.
EXHAUST CONTROL:
NONE
LACQUER:
GALS- /DAY. ADDED THINNER:
GALS. /DAY
*ATERWASH
OTHER:
(DESCRIBE )
GALS- /DAY. ADDED THINNER:
GALS./DAY.
NUMBER 6 SIZE OF
EXHAUST FILTERS:
ESTIMATED
COST:
BASIC
EQUIPMENT: t
A.P.C.
EOUIPMJNT: $
EXHAUST FAN
HORSEPOVER:
USUAL OPERATING SCHEDULE:
HRS/DAY
DAYS/WEEK
WATER PUMP
HORSEPOWER:
ARTICLES SPRAYED:
OVEN DRIED: YES 1 ) N Ol
PROCESS DESCRIPTION, NUISANCE EVALUATION AND FINDINGS:
lECOMMENOEO
DISPOSITION:
, APPROVC FOR
PEfcMIT.
JTQ CQNPIT1QKS LISTED B£LQW
i 1 MOLD , SEt
*'- '^ EXPLAN AT I ON
i 1 DtMY
' ' PERMIT.
REVIEWING ENGINEER:
I CONCUR »ITH RECOMMENDATIONS
| D0 NOT CONCUR WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
MMFNT5 ON ATTATHFD PAGF
SIGNATURE
PAGE 1 OF.
. PAGES
16-50D23D
Figure 7.5. Field report form, spray booths, Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District
-------
7.20
A IK HOLLUI ION CONTROL DlbTRIC'l • COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
434 SOUTH SAN PEDRO STREET. .LOS ANGELES. CALIF. 90013. MADISON 9-4711
DEGREASER—FIELD REPORT
NAME OF CORPORATION| COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL OKNtR THAT IS 'TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT AS IT APPEARS ON BUSINESS
LICENSE. PERMIT TO BE ISSUED TO:
NAME OF PARTNERS OR INDIVIDUAL OWNER
DATE OF INSPECTION
EQUIPMENT LOCATION (ADDRESS)
A.P.C.D. ZONE no.
REASON PERMIT
IS REQUI RED:
NEVI CON-
STRUCTION
n CHANGE OF r~—|
OWNERSHIP I I
ALTERA-
TION
CHANGE
LESSEE
CHANGE
LOCATION
NAME OF
FORMER PERMITTEE:
FORMER PERMIT NO.
DEGREASER MANUFACTURER
MODEL NUMBER
SERIAL NUMBER
OUTSIDE DIMENSIONS OF TANK MEASURED:
WIDE X . HIGH X LONG
NAMES a TITLES OF PERSONS
CONTACTED
LIST ALL TYPES AND QUANTITY OF DEGREASER S.OLVENT USED:
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 55 GAL. DRUMS PER MONTH
P£RCHL.OROETHYLENE_
.55 GAL. DRUMS PER MONTH
OTHER (DESCRIBE) ,
(ANY OTHER CONVENIENT MEASURE MAY BE USED)
HEATING SOURCE: RATING
ELECTRIC KILOWATTS
GAS
CU.FT./HR.
OTHER: EXPLAIN
NONE
ESTIMATED
COST
BASIC
EQUIPMENT: S
A.P.C.
EQUIPMENT: $
DOES (NOT) DISCHARGE TO AN APC DEVICE (DESCRIBE)
. .
PROCESS DESCRIPTION, NU ISANCt EVALUATION AND FINDINGS:
BHBE55
SCO? ITION:
A ? P K 0 V £. FOR P £ f\ vi I T i, U o J i.
TO CONDITIONS LISTED TKLOP.
| 1 KC/LC). SEE EX.
1 'PV'NATIOM BELO*.
it.VIUV, ING LNGINttR:
LID I CONCUR WITH RECOKWEKDATIONS
L-I I DO NOT CONCUR WITH Pt COMMfc NO A T I ONS
L j Src rciuuCHTs en *TT*CnfO PAOC
SIGNATURE.
PAGE I OF
16-
Figure 7.6. Field report form, degreaser, Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District
-------
7.21
REFERENCES
;i. A Guide for Evaluation of Solid Particle Emissions from Asphalt Paving
Plants. New Jersey State Department of Health and Air Sanitation. May 1966,
2. Asphalt, Pocketbook of Useful Information. The Asphalt Institute Manual
Series No. 6 (MS-6). May 1965.
3. McGraw, M.J. and R.L. Duprey. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. EPA. April 1971 (preliminary document).
4. Devorkin, H., R.L. Chass, A.P. Fudurich, and C.V. Kanter. Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual, Holmes, R.G. (ed.). Air Pollution Control District,
Los Angeles County. November 1963.
5. Kelly, W.F. Management through Systems and Procedures. The Total Systems
Concept. John Wiley & Sons. May 1969-
6. von Lehmden, D.V. and S.T. Cuffe. Development of a Permit System for Air
Pollution Prevention and Control. Based on Research Workshop Proceedings
(unpublished). USDHEW, PHS, EHS, NAPCA. July 1970.
-------
•A.1.1
APPENDIX 1
WORK UNITS FOR PERMIT PROCESSING
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT—COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ENGINEERING DIVISION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
ISSUED; April 10. 1967
The use of work units for permit processing serves two goals:
1. To provide substantiating evidence in preparing future budget
requests.
2. To reflect accurately the work accomplishments to the
Permit Processing Units.
All or most types of permit units processed have been listed in the index and
assigned a specific work unit value for an A/C action and one for a P/0 action.
Work unit values for permit units not now listed will be added by a committee
when necessary. The total work unit value for any permit application will be
the sum of the individual A/C and P/0 work unit values earned by the appropriate
actions for the permit unit.
The A/C work unit value is used in determining work units earned by the following
actions: A/C's granted, A/C's denied, and cancellations (prior to an A/C) of
Class I applications. The P/0 work unit value is used in determining work
units earned by the following actions: P/0's granted, P/0's denied, cancella-
tions of Class III applications, and cancellations of Class I applications
after an A/C has been granted.
In preparing the budget over the years, the District has observed that about
1300 work units are completed per man-year and also that the man-hours per work
unit varies between 1.4 and 1.6.
A/C = Authority to Construct
P/0 = Permit to Operate
-------
A.1.2
Basic Permit Unit
Work Unit Values
A/C
P/0
Abrasive blaster, cleaner or tumbler
Absorber column or tower
Acetaldehyde production
Acetone production
Acetylene production
Acid production
Aging furnace or oven
Alcohol production
Alkyl aryl sulfonate production
Alkylation
Alkyd resin production
Ammonia dissociator
Ammonia production
Ammonium sulfate production
Anhydride production
Animal matter cooker
Annealing furnace or oven
Annealing lehr for glass
Arc furnace, direct
Arc furnace, indirect
Arc welder
Aromatics recovery
Asphalt production by blowing
Asphalt production by distillation
Asphalt saturator
Asphaltic concrete batching
Bacon rind fryer
Bake oven
Basic woodworking equipment
Batch coker thermal conversion of petroleum products
Benzene hexachloride production
Bin for storage of solid material
Bleach manufacturing plant
Blood drier
Boiler, other than steam electric generating unit
Brake lining bonder
Brake lining debonder
Buffing and grinding
Bulk loader or unloader
Bulk ship loading
Butadiene production
Butane isomerization
3
5
12
14
14
30
4
14
10
20
8
3
30
30
30
8
4
4
16
10
3
30
20
10
3
12
4
4
6
30
20
5
10
18
4
4
12
2
10
20
30
30
5
4
7
8
7
20
5
8
8
7
8
4
18
7
20
8
5
5
40
10
4
20
15
8
19
30
6
5
8
20
12
6
12
24
10
6
10
3
8
40
20
18
-------
A.1.3
Basic Permit Unit Work Unit Values
Can manufacturing line
Carbon bisulfide production
Carbon black production
Cardboard container manufacturing line
Catalytic alkylation
Catalytic cracking of petroleum products
Catalytic polymerization
Catalytic reforming of petroleum products
Catalyst handling and storage equipment
Cement handling equipment
Ceramic drier or oven
Chemical manufacturing (not otherwise identified
Chemical milling and etching
Chip drier
Chlorinated methane production
Chlorine production
Chrome plating or anodizing tank
Coffee conveying, grinding & packaging equipment
Coffee roasting equipment
Compressor (Refinery)
Concrete batching plant (both dry & wet, dry)
Concrete batching plant (wet only)
Cooling tower
Core oven
Crucible furnace, Al,,Cu, Mg, Steel
Crucible furnace, Brass
Crucible furnace Pb
Crucible furnace, Zn
Crude oil distillation or topping
Crude oil production
Crushing and grinding equipment
Cumene production
Cupola furnace
Deep fat fryer
Degreaser
Die casting equipment
Dip tank
Distillation unit (Chemical)
Drier or kiln
Dry cleaner, petroleum, and synthetic
Drum burning reclamation furnace, conveyorized
Effluent water separators
Electric induction or resistance furnace
Electrolytic plating or stripping
A/C
12
14
10
6
20
35
14
30
5
6
8
20
10
16
30
40
10
20
8
5
10
10
10
4
5
12
8
5
12
10
6
30
i /"
16
4
9
Z.
7
/
A
1
10
7
/
3
25
16
JL\J
1 O
I/
1 ft
L\J
P/0
10
8
8
8
7
20
7
18
4
6
12
18
8
16
18
40
5
10
10
4
10
10
10
10
6
10
8
8
6
7
i f\
10
1 O
18
1 f\
1U
•3
*J
10
.L.W
A
^T
1 f\
10
13
-i.-^
12
12
in
_LLJ
Cj
_J
-------
A.1.4
Basic Permit Unit Work Unit Values
Electrostatic coater
Ethylbenzene production
Ethylchloride production
Ethyl ether production
Ethylene dibromide production
Ethylene dichloridgt production
Ethylene glycol production
Ethylene oxide production
Feed and grain handling plant
Fertilizer production, liquid
Fertilizer production, solid
Fixed Roof tank
Floating roof tank
Floating roof alterations
Flow coater
Flue fed incinerator, S/C
Food Cooking (animal)
Food product cooker
Forge or forge furnace
Formaldehyde production
Forming or impregnating
Foundry shakeout and sand handling equipment
Fumigation oven
Galvanizing equipment
Garnetting equipment
Gas generator
Glass, frit, and insulation furnace
Glycerol production
Grease solvent extraction unit
Heat treat furnace
Heaters and reb oilers
Holding and melting furnace
Hydraulic press
Ketone production
Knockout trap
Laboratory hood and equipment
Laundry tumbler
Leather processing equipment
Lube oil re-refining
Lithograph oven
Maleic anhydride production
Methyl ethyl ketone production
Methyl mercaptan production
Mixing equipment
Muffle furnace
A/C
6
30
14
13
13
13
30
30
10
4
10
5
5
4
4
8
8
4
6
15
4
16
5
10
16
3
10
12
24
4
8
8
3
14
5
3
2
3
18
11
30
14
15
5
20
P/0
4
12
6
6
6
6
20
20
16
13
15
5
5
4
4
8
12
6
6
10
6
8
8
10
14
4
35
10
24
5
10
8
4
8
4
4
3
6
20
16
20
8
6
10
16
-------
A.1.5
Basic Permit Unit Work Unit Values
M/C incinerator non-standard
M/C incinerator standard
Naphthenic acid production
Natural gasoline processing
Normalizing furnace
Nut roaster
Nylon hot stretch unit
Oil quench tank
Open hearth furnace
Pathological incinerator
Pentaerythritol production
Perlite -furnace
Petrochemical processing
Petroleum product treating & sweating
Phenol-formaldehyde production
Phthalic anhydride production
Pipe coating equipment
Pipe wrapping equipment
Pit furnace
Plastic curing oven
Plastic laminating equipment
Plating or etching equipment
Pneumatic conveyor, cyclone material separator
Polybutene production
Polyethylene production
Pot furnace
Potato chip fryer
Pressure tank
Printing press
Processing tank
Propylene production
Pump
Reactor
Recuperative furnace
Reduction furnace
Regenerative furnace
Rendered products handling system
Rendering cookers, continuous
Rendering equipment, batch
Rendering raw materials handling system
Retort furnace
A/C
17
8
20
14
4
4
5
3
24
16
30
24
30
14
10
30
3
3
12
4
4
10
18
14
45
5
4
5
4
3
14
3
8
20
24
20
16
8
8
on
zu
P/0
10
10
8
12
5
6
8
4
20
10
20
12
20
6
6
10
20
20
10
5
5
5
•6
6
30
6
6
4
5
4
6
4
6
20
O />
20
20
32
o o
32
Ifi
J_ V
-------
A.1.6
Basic Permit Unit Work Unit Values
Reverberatory furnace
Rock crushing and sizing equipment
Roller coater
Rotogravure press
Rotary furnace
Rubber manufacturing, synthetic
Rubber processing equipment
Salt bath furnace
Sand handling system
Saponification process equipment
Sewage treatment exp. odor control
Sewage treatment digestion
Sewage treatment headworks
Sewage treatment sedimentation
Sewage treatment water reclamation
Shell moulding equipment
S/C incinerator
Sintering furnace or oven
Smoke generator )
Smokehouse
Solid material handling
Solvent wash tank
Spray drier
Steam electric generating unit
Storage tank, (chemical)
Styrene production
Surface preparation and cleaning
Sweat furnace
Underground tanks
Uniform feed M/C incinerators
Vacuum pump
Varnish or resin cooker
Vegetable oil processing equipment
Vinyl acetate production
Vinyl chloride production
Vinyl toluene production
Wax burnout oven
Wire reclaimer burner
Woodworking
A/C
24
10
4
6
24
30
8
4
16
14
12
10
10
10
15
3
4
10
4
4
10
4
12
20
3
30
2
24
3
21
3
3
12
12
12
14
8
16
6
P/0
16
15
4
6
16
25
8
5
8
10
30
10
15
20
10
5
4
6
8
14
12
4
12
50
4
20
2
20
4
12
4
4
7
10
10
12
6
10
8
-------
APPENDIX 2
JOB AND TASK ANALYSIS OF THE
NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF AIR RESOURCES
-------
WORKS!' ET NUMBER 2 SOURCE: ES
Air Pollution Control Engineer _ ., „_ , „ , . . n. .
JOS Ti LE; rcon-i™ &eD4a*nrvi- T..n4^«t DIVISION: Possil Fuels Combustion Division twTecurPWPR-
MAJOR UUTY
Process appli-
cations for
operation for oil
or gas fired
equipment .
Reply to requests
for information.
DUTY
xamine plans and applications. Approve or disapprove. Notify agent of the action via Plan Desk.
ncludes: (1) applications for upgrading existing equipment and (2) applications relative to new
nstallations; and (3) amendments to correct previously disapproved applications.
ake field inspection. Grant certificate of inspection or issue "violation".
Reply to information requests from air pollution boards In other cities.
teply to requests from clients or their agents.
DATE! UA7/69 12
LEVEL
KEY
|
>
IX)
-------
WORKSHEET NUHEER 3 • JOBS. ^/SaSs)0" Ccmtro1 Enslneer
TASK; Processing Applications DIVISION: Fossil Fuels Combustion Division
PRODUCT
Applications
approved or
disapproved -
(both for new oil
installations and
upgraded existing
installations) .
CRITERIA
Reject the appli-
cation if these
are not present ,
filled out:
1. Three (3)
APC-S-0's.
2. Letter of
3. Three (3) sets
of plans.
H. Boiler diagram.
5. Plot plan.
6. Cellar plan,
showing loca-
tion of the
lation breech-
ing chimney .
If •
1. Boiler dimen-
sions are not
given.
2. Lacks seal,
signature, and
address.
3. It is sloppy or
is a stock plan,
not individua-
lized for this
job.
4. The wrong plan
for the job
was included.
5* There is a
discrepancy
plans and the
APC 5—0
STEPS
Check to be sure that file contains
all the necessary papers, and that
all are filled out.
Compare the APC 5-0 with the plans,
item by item, checking each Item to
agree.
Get boiler catalogs for the type
specified. Find heating surface
(H.S.). Use SBI tables (Steel
Boiler Institute). Find boiler's
gross boiler output, firing rate for
gross output, boiler net rating.
Compare these figures with those
given on APC 5-0. If there is any
variation at all, issue an objection
Now take the "checklist." Go througl
the APC 5-0 and check if the
requirements have been met.
Recheck the results of the Heat
Release Calculation.
Check to be sure that the "load" is
not larger than the "boiler's net
rating." (These figures are given
by the P.E. at the bottom of side
figures by these methods:
A. Multiply number of rooms x 5, The
result should be approximately the
same as gph of Load, (B) Domestic
Hot Water.
C. Compare result of A + B + C cal-
culation with the boiler net rating.
When correct, the boiler rating
figure is larger.
(Continued on Sheet 1*0|
REFERENCE
"Criteria Used
for Oil Fired
Equipment. " (And
the outline of it
prepared by the
Fossil Fuel Divi-
sion Staff.)
"Engineering Guide
.for Upgrading
Residual Fuel
Burning Equipment"
and
(Both are publish'
ed by New York
Department of Air
Pollution Control;
Unpublished cal-
culations
prepared by
Fossil Fuels
staff concerning
allowable varia-
tions in chimney
heights and
diameters .
SHEET
SOURCE; "^ NUMBER
INTERVI EWER : DATE : H/29/69 13
TOOLS
Slide Rule
MATERIALS
SBI, ABMA, IBR,
MCA, PAPP refer-
ences (NWAH, ACA
for furnaces) .
Boiler catalogs
(burners, heaters)
ASHRAE Guide &
Data Book
References con-
tained in Criteria
Plans
NEEDS TO KNOW
required procedures for filing and
examination
looking up boiler output, calcular
ting when necessary
boiler load calculation
piping and pick'up calculation
heat release calculation
analysis of combustion chamber
combustion air calculations
oil heating calculations
• burner sizing and selection
• analysis of control requirements
DWS rules for fail-safe elements
breeching and chimney calculations
fan selection based on CFM and SP
c ondi 1 1 on s
-------
WORKSHEET NUMBER 3 JOBS: (All Grades)
TASK: Processing Applications DIVISION: Fossil Fuels Combustion Division
PRODUCT
Amendment
approved or
disapproved .
CRITERIA
Same as for new
application.
STEPS
(Continued from Sheet 13)
Write objections, if any. (This is
a matter of using the correct stamp,
then having the form typed.)
Proofread it. Send it to the Plan
Desk for forwarding to the agent.
f time permits, treat this as a new
pplication and check out each item.
is a minimum, look at- the previous
notice of disapproval and be sure
:hat all objections have been
properly answered.
REFERENCE
Same as for above.
SHEET
SOURCE i NUMBER
INTERVIEWER: DATE: U/29/69 It
TOOLS
Same as above.
MATERIALS
Same as above.
NEEDS TO KNOW
-------
WORKSHEET NUMBER 3 JOBS- Air Pollution Control Engineer
(All Grades)
TASK: Processing Applications/ ^ield . DIVISION: Engineering Services/Fossil Fuels
PRODUCT
Field inspection
completed.
CRITERIA
The actual instal-
lation should
comply with the
drawings and
specifications
previously approv
ed, at least con-
cerning engineer-
ing features.
Also, the general
configuration
should be as
shown on the
i plans (e.g..
pipes must be on
the same side as
shown) .
STEPS
Locate superintendent and have him
present during the inspection.
Compare the items as installed with
the data on the AFC 5-0.
Compare the installation configura-
tion with that shown in the plans.
Check measurements.
Check for items not covered by the
APC 5-0 hut covered in the
"Criteria" (e.g., oil temperature
indicator) .
Observe the system in operation, to
see if all auxiliary equipment
functions, and if the system is
effective in cleaning emissions.
Check chimney height.
Submit findings to Department head
for review.
REFERENCE
"Criteria Used For
Oil-Fired Equip-
ment," (N. Y.
Dept. of Air
Pollution Control,
1967)
"Air Pollution
Engineering
Manual, " (U. S,
Public Health
Service)
"Engineering Guide
For Upgrading
Residual Fuel
Burning Equipment
Aid Alternatives,"
(N. Y. Department
of Air Pollution
Control)
"Air Pollution
Control," New York
City, 1968.
SHFET
SOURCE: NUMBER
I NTERV I EWER ! DATE : 4/17/69 15
TOOLS
Flashlight
6 -foot folding
rule
MATERIALS
City Maps
Complete File On
The Application
NEEDS TO KNOW
Must be able to read plans, to
extent of determining if the actual
configuration conforms with thri
plans.
Recognize equipment, find and reed
nameplates.
-------
A.3.1
APPENDIX 3
EXCERPTS OF RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PERMIT SYSTEM
RULE 2b. PERSON
"Person11 means any person, firm, association, organization,
partnership, business trust, corporation, company, contractor,
supplier, installer, user or owner, or any state or local gov-
ernmental agency or public district or any officer or employee
thereof.
RULE 10. PERMITS REQUIRED
a. Authority to Construct. Any person building, erecting,
altering or replacing any article, machine, equipment or other
contrivance, the use of which may cause the issuance of air con-
taminants or the use of which may eliminate or reduce or control
the issuance of air contaminants, shall first obtain authoriza-
tion for such construction from the Air Pollution Control Officer.
An authority to construct shall remain in effect until the per-
mit to operate the equipment for which the application was filed
is granted or denied or the application is canceled.
b. Permit to Operate. Before any article, machine, equipment
or other contrivance described in Rule 10 (a) may be operated
or used, a written permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollu-
tion Control Officer. No permit to operate or use shall be
f ranted either by the Air Pollution Control Officer or the Hear-
ng Board for any article, machine, equipment or contrivance de-
scribed in Rule 10 (a), constructed or installed without author-
ization as required by Rule 10 (a), until the information re-
quired is presented to the Air Pollution Control Officer and
such article, machine, equipment or contrivance is altered, if
necessary, and made to conform to the standards set forth in
Rule 20 and elsewhere in these Rules and Regulations.
c. Posting of Permit to Operate. A person who has been granted
under Rule 10 a permit to operate any article, machine, equip-
ment, or other contrivance described in Rule 10 (b), shall firm-
ly affix such permit to operate, an approved facsimile, or other
approved identification bearing the permit number upon the art-
icle, machine, equipment, or other contrivance in such a manner
as to be clearly visible and accessible. In the event that the
article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance is so construct-
ed or operated that the permit to operate cannot be so placed, the
permit to operate shall be mounted so as to be clearly visible in
an accessible place within 25 feet of the article, machine, equip-
ment, or other contrivance, or maintained readily available at all
times on the operating premises.
-------
A.3.-2.
d. A person shall not wilfully deface, alter,, forge, counter-
feit, or falsify a permit to.operate any article, machine, equip-
ment or other contrivance.
f. Permit to Sell or Rent. Any person who sells or rents to
another person an incinerator which may be used to dispose of
combustible refuse by burning within the Los Angeles Basin and
which incinerator is to be used exclusively in connection with
any structure, which structure is designed for and used exclus-
ively as a dwelling for not more than four families, shall first
obtain a permit from the Air Pollution Control Officer to sell
or rent such incinerator.
RULE 11. EXEMPTIONS
An authority to construct or a permit to operate shall not be
required for:
a. Vehicles as defined by the Vehicle Code of the State of Cali-
fornia but not including any article, machine, equipment or other
contrivance mounted on such vehicle that would otherwise require
a permit under the provisions of these Rules and Regulations.
b. Vehicles used to transport passengers or freight.
c. Equipment utilized exclusively in connection with any struc-
ture, which structure is designed for and used exclusively as a
dwelling for not more than four families.
d. The following equipment:
1. Comfort air conditioning or comfort ventilating systems
which are not designed to remove air contaminants gen-
erated by or released from specific units of equipment.
2. Refrigeration units except those used as, or in conjunc-
tion with, air pollution control equipment.
3. Piston type internal combustion engines.
5. Water cooling towers and water cooling ponds not used
for evaporative cooling of process water or not used
for evaporative cooling of water from barometric jets
or from barometric condensers.
6. Equipment used exclusively for steam cleaning.
7. Presses used exclusively for extruding metals, minerals,
plastics or wood.
-------
A.3.3
8. Procelain enameling furnaces, porclain enameling dry-
ing ovens, vitreous enameling furnaces or vitreous
enameling drying ovens,
9. Presses used for the curing of rubber products and
plastic products.
10. Equipment used exclusively for space heating, other
than boilers.
13. Equipment used for hydraulic or hydrostatic testing.
14. All sheet-fed printing presses and all other printing
presses using exclusively inks containing less than
10% organic solvents, diluents or thinners.
17. Tanks, vessels and pumping equipment used exclusively
for the storage or dispensing of fresh commercial or
purer grades of:
a. Sulfuric acid with an acid strength of 99 per
cent or less by weight.
b. Phosphoric acid with an acid strength of 99 per
cent or less by weight.
c. Nitric acid with an acid strength of 70 per cent
or less by weight.
18. Ovens used exclusively for the curing of plastics which
are concurrently being vacuum held to a mold or for the
softening or annealing of plastics.
19. Equipment used exclusively for the dyeing or stripping
(bleaching) of textiles where no organic solvents, di-
luents or thinners are used.
20. Equipment used exclusively to mill or grind coatings
and molding compounds where all materials charged are
in a paste form.
21. Crucible type or pot type furnaces with a brimful cap-
acity of less than 450 cubic inches of any molten metal.
22. Equipment used exclusively for the melting or applying
of wax where no organic solvents, diluents or thinners
are used.
-------
A.3.4
23. Equipment used exclusively for bonding lining to brake
shoes.
24. Lint traps used exclusively in conjunction with dry
cleaning tumblers.
25. Equipment used in eating establishments for the purpose
of preparing food for human consumption.
26. Equipment used exclusively to compress or hold dry
natural gas.
27. Tumblers used for the cleaning or deburring of metal
products without abrasive blasting.
28. Shell core and shell-mold manufacturing machines.
29. Molds used for the casting of metals.
30. Abrasive blast cabinet-dust filter integral combination
units where the total internal volume of the blast sec-
tion is 50 cubic feet or less.
31. Batch mixers of 5 cubic feet rated working capacity
or less.
32. Equipment used exclusively for the packaging of lubri-
cants or greases.
33. Equipment used exclusively for the manufacture of water
emulsions of asphalt, greases, oils or waxes.
34. Ovens used exclusively for the curing of vinyl plasti-
sols by the closed mold curing process.
35. Equipment used exclusively for conveying and storing
plastic pellets.
36. Equipment used exclusively for the mixing and blending
of materials at ambient temperature to make water based
adhesives.
37. Smokehouses in which the maximum horizontal inside cross-
sectional area does not exceed 20 square feet.
38, Platen presses used for laminating.
-------
A.3.5
e. The following equipment or any exhaust system or collector
serving exclusively such equipment:
1. Blast cleaning equipment using a suspension of abrasive
in water.
2. Ovens, mixers and blenders used in bakeries where the
products are edible and intended for human consumption.
3. Kilns used for firing ceramic ware, heated exclusively
by natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, electricity or
any combination thereof.
4. Laboratory equipment used exclusively for chemical or
physical analyses and bench scale laboratory equipment.
5. Equipment used for inspection of metal products.
6. Confection cookers where the products are edible and
intended for human consumption.
7. Equipment used exclusively for forging, pressing,
rolling or drawing of metals or for heating metals
immediately prior to forging, pressing, rolling or
drawing.
8. Die casting machines.
9. Atmosphere generators used in connection with metal
heat treating processes.
10. Photographic process equipment by which an image is
reproduced upon material sensitized to radiant energy.
11. Brazing, soldering or welding equipment.
12. Equipment used exclusively for the sintering of glass
or metals.
13. Equipment used for buffing (except automatic or semi-
automatic tire buffers) or polishing, carving, cutting,
drilling, machining, routing, sanding, sawing, surface
grinding or turning of ceramic artwork, ceramic pre-
cision parts, leather, metals, plastics, rubber, fiber-
board, masonry, asbestos, carbon or graphite.
14. Equipment used for carving, cutting, drilling, surface
grinding, planing, routing, sanding, sawing, shredding
or turning of wood, or the pressing or storing of saw-
dust, wood chips or wood shavings.
-------
A.3.6
15. Equipment using aqueous solutions for surface prepara-
tion, cleaning, stripping, etching (does not include
chemical milling) or the electrolytic plating with
electrolytic polishing of, or the electrolytic stripping
of brass, bronze, cadmium, copper, iron,lead, nickel, tin,
zinc, and precious metals.
16. Equipment used for washing or drying products fabricated
from metal or glass, provided that no volatile organic
materials are used in the process and that no oil or
solid fuel is burned.
17. Laundry dryers, extractors or tumblers used for fabrics
cleaned only with water solutions of bleach or detergents.
19. Foundry sand mold forming equipment to which no heat
is applied.
20. Ovens used exclusively for curing potting materials
or castings made with epoxy resins.
21. Equipment used to liquefy or separate oxygen, nitro-
gen or the rare gases from the air.
22. Equipment used for compression molding and injection
molding of plastics.
23. Mixers for rubber or plastics where no material in
powder form is added and no organic solvents, dilu-
ents or thinners are used.
24. Equipment used exclusively to package Pharmaceuticals
and cosmetics or to coat pharmaceutical tablets.
25. Equipment used exclusively to grind, blend or package
tea, cocoa, spices or roasted coffee.
26. Roll mills or calenders for rubber or plastics where
no organic solvents, diluents or thinners are used.
27. Vacuum producing devices used in laboratory operations
or in connection with other equipment which is exempt
by Rule 11.
f. Steam generators, steam superheaters, water boilers, water
heaters, and closed heat transfer systems that are fired ex-
clusively with one of the following:
1. Natural gas.
2. Liquefied petroleum gas.
3. A combination of natural gas and liquefied gas.
-------
A.3.7
hoods, natural draft stacks or natural draft
h. Containers, reservoirs, or tanks used exclusively for:
°Per^tions f°* coating objects with oils, waxes
are used63 n° °rganic solve"ts, diluents or thinners
2. Dipping operations for applying coatings of natural or
synthetic resins which contain no organic solvents.
3. Storage of liquefied gases.
5. Unheated storage of organic materials with an initial
boiling point of 300° F. or greater.
6» The storage of fuel oils witn a gravity of 25° API
or lower.
7. The storage of lubricating oils.
8, The storage of fuel oils with a gravity of 40° API
or lower and having a capacity of 10,000 gallons or
less.
9. The storage of organic liquids, except gasoline, nor-
mally used as solvents, diluents or thinners, inks,
colorants, paints, lacquers, enamels, varnishes, li-
quid resins or other surface coatings, and having a
capacity of 6,000 gallons or less.
10. The storage of liquid soaps, liquid detergents, vege-
table oils, waxes or wax emulsions.
11. The storage of asphalt.
12. Unheated solvent dispensing containers, unheated non-
conyeyorized solvent rinsing containers or unheated
non-conveyorized coating dip tanks of 100 gallons
capacity or less.
14. The storage of gasoline having a capacity of less than
250 gallons.
15. Transporting materials on streets or highways.
-------
A.3.8
i. Equipment used exclusively for heat treating glass or metals,
or used exclusively for case hardening, carburizing, cyaniding,
nitriding, carbonitriding, siliconizing or diffusion treating of
metal objects.
j. Crucible furnaces, pot furnaces or induction furnaces, with
a capacity of 1000 pounds or less each, in which no sweating or
distilling is conducted and from which only the following metals
are poured or in which only the following metals are held in a
molten state:
1. Aluminum or any alloy containing over 50 per cent aluminum,
2. Magnesium or any alloy containing over 50 per cent magnesii
3. Lead or any alloy containing over 50 per cent lead.
4. Tin or any alloy containing over 50 per cent tin.
5. Zinc or any alloy containing over 50 per cent zinc.
6. Copper
7. Precious metals.
k. Vacuum cleaning systems used exclusively for industrial,
commercial or residential housekeeping purposes.
1. Structural changes which cannot change the quality, nature
or quantity of air contaminant emissions.
m. Repairs or maintenance not involving structural changes to
any equipment for which a permit has been granted.
n. Identical replacements in whole or in part of any article,
machine, equipment or other contrivance where a permit to oper-
ate had previously been granted for such equipment under Rule 10.
RULE 12. TRANSFER
An authority to construct, permit to operate or permit to sell or
rent shall not be transferable, whether by operation of law or
otherwise, either from one location to another, from one piece
of equipment to another, or from one person to another.
-------
A.3.9
RULE 14. APPLICATIONS
Every application for an authority to construct, permit to operate
or permit to sell or rent required under Rule 10 shall be filed in
the manner and form prescribed by the Air Pollution Control Officei
and shall give all the information necessary to enable the Air Pol-
lution Control Officer to make the determination required by Rule
20 hereof.
RULE 17. CANCELLATION OF APPLICATIONS
a. An authority to construct shall expire and the application
shall be canceled two years from the date of issuance of the au-
thority to construct.
b. An application for permit to operate existing equipment shall
be canceled two years from the date of filing of the application.
RULE 18. ACTION ON APPLICATIONS
The Air Pollution Control Officer shall act, within a reasonable
time, on an application for authority to construct, permit to
operate or permit to sell or rent, and shall notify the applicant
in writing of his approval, conditional approval or denial.
RULE 19. PROVISION OF SAMPLING AND TESTING FACILITIES
A person operating or using any article, machine, equipment or
other contrivance for which these rules require a permit shall
provide and maintain such sampling and testing facilities as
specified in the authority to construct or permit to operate.
RULE 20. STANDARDS FOR GRANTING APPLICATIONS
a. The Air Pollution Control Officer shall deny an authority to
construct, permit to operate or permit to sell or rent, except
as provided in Rule 21, if the applicant does not show that every
article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of which
may cause the issuance of air contaminants, or the use of which -
-------
A.3.10
may eliminate or reduce or control the issuance of air contaminan
is so designed, controlled, or equipped with such air pollution c
trol equipment, that it may be expected to operate without emitti;
or without causing to be emitted air contaminants in violation of
Sections 24242 or 24243, Health and Safety Code, or of these Rule
or Regulations.
b. Before an authority to construct or a permit to operate is
granted, the Air Pollution Control Officer may require the appli-
cant to provide and maintain such facilities as are necessary for
sampling and testing purposes in order to secure information that
will disclose the nature, extent, quantity or degree of air con-
taminants discharged into the atmosphere from the article, machin
equipment or other contrivance described in the.authority to con-
struct or permit to operate. In theevent of such a requirement,
the Air Pollution Control Officer shall notify the applicant in
writing of the required size, number and location of sampling hoi
the size and location of the sampling platform; the access to the
sampling platform; and the utilities for operating the sampling
and testing equipment. The platform and access shall be construct
in accordance with the General Industry Safety Orders of the Stat
of California.
c. In acting upon a Permit to Operate, if the Air Pollution Cont
Officer finds that the article, machine, equipment or other contr
vance has been constructed not in accordance with the Authority t!
Construct, he shall deny the Permit to Operate. The Air Pollutic
Control Officer shall not accept any further application for Per-
mit to Operate the article, machine, equipment or other contrivar
so constructed until he finds that the article, machine, equipmer
or other contrivance has been reconstructed in accordance with tt
Authority to Construct.
RULE 21. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
a. The Air Pollution Control Officer may issue an authority
to construct or a permit to operate, subject to conditions
which will bring the operation of any article, machine, equip-
ment or other contrivance within the standards of Rule 20, in
which case the conditions shall be specified in writing. Com-
mencing work under such an authority to construct or operation
under such a permit to operate shall be deemed acceptance of
all the conditions so specified. The Air Pollution Control
Officer shall issue an authority to construct or a permit to
operate with revised conditions upon receipt of a new appli-
cation, if the applicant demonstrates that the article, machine,
equipment or other contrivance can operate within the standards
of Rule 20 under the revised conditions.
-------
A.3.11
b. The Air Pollution Control Officer may issue a permit to sell
or rent, subject to conditions which will bring the operation of
any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance within the
standards of Rule 20, in which case the conditions shall be speci-
fied in writing. Selling or renting under such a permit to sell
or rent shall be deemed acceptance of all the conditions so speci-
fied. The Air Pollution Control Officer shall issue a permit to
sell or rent with revised conditions upon receipt of a new appli-
cation, if the applicant demonstrates that the article, machine,
equipment or other contrivance can operate within the standards
of Rule 20 under the revised conditions.
RULE 22. DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS
In the event of denial of an authority to construct, permit to
operate or permit to sell or rent, the Air Pollution Control Office
shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons therefor. Ser-
vice of this notification may be made in person or by mail, and
such service may be proved by the written acknowledgment of the
persons served or affidavit of the person making the service. The
Air Pollution Control Officer shall not accept a further applica-
tion unless the applicant has complied with the objections speci-
. fied by the Air Pollution Control Officer as his reasons for denial
of the authority to construct, the permit to operate or the permit
to sell or rent.
RULE 23. FURTHER INFORMATION
Before acting on an application for authority to construct, per-
mit to operate or permit to sell or rent, the Air Pollution Control
Officer may require the applicant to furnish further information
or further plans or specifications.
RULE 24. APPLICATIONS DEEMED DENIED
The applicant may at his option deem the authority to con-
struct, permit to operate or permit to sell or rent denied
if the Air Pollution Control Officer fails to act on the
application within 30 days after filing, or within 30 days
after applicant furnishes the further information, plans
and specifications requested by the Air Pollution Control
Officer, whichever is later.
-------
A.3.12
RULE 25. APPEALS
Within 10 days after notice, by the Air Pollution Control
Officer, of denial or conditional approval of an authority
to construct, permit to operate or permit to sell or rent,
the applicant may petition the Hearing Board, in writing,
for a public hearing. The Hearing Board, after notice and a
public hearing held ^within 30 days after filing the petition,
may sustain or reverse the action of the Air Pollution Control
Officer; such order may be made subject to specified conditions.
RULE 40. PERMIT FEES
Every applicant, except any state or local governmental agency
or public district, for an authority to construct or a permit
to operate any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance,
for which an authority to construct or permit to operate is re-
quired by the State law or the Rules and Regulations of the
Air Pollution Control District, shall pay a filing fee of $40.00.
Where an application is filed for a permit to operate any article
machine, equipment or other contrivance by reason of transfer
from one person to another, and where a permit to operate had
previously been granted under Rule 10 and no alteration, additior
or transfer of location' has been made, the applicant shall pay
only a $10.00 filing fee.
Every applicant, except any state or local governmental agency
or public district, for a permit to operate, who files an appli-
cation with the Air Pollution Control Officer, shall, in addition
to the filing fee prescribed herein, pay the fee for the issuance
of a permit to operate in the amount prescribed in the following
schedules, provided, however, that the filing fee shall be applie
to the fee prescribed for the issuance of the permit to operate.
If an application for an authority to construct or a permit to
operate is canceled, or if an authority to construct or a permit
to operate is denied and such denial becomes final, the filing
fee required herein shall not be refunded nor applied to any
subsequent application.
Where an application is filed for a permit to operate any
article, machine, equipment or.other contrivance by reason
of transfer of location or transfer from one person to an-
other, or both, and where a permit to operate had previously
been granted for such equipment under Kule 10 and an alteration
-------
A.3.13
or addition has been made, the applicant shall be assessed a
fee based^upon the increase in total horsepower rating, the
increase in total fuel consumption expressed in thousands of
British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour, the increase in total
electrical energy rating, the increase in maximum horizontal
inside cross sectional area or the increase in total station-
ary container capacity resulting from such alterations or ad-
ditions, as described in the fee schedules contained herein.
Where the application is for transfer of location and no alter-
ation or addition has been made, the applicant shall pay only
a filing fee of $40.00.
Where an application is filed for an authority to construct or
a permit to operate exclusively involving revisions to the con-
ditions of an existing permit to operate or involving alterations
or additions resulting in a change to any existing article, ma-
chine, equipment or other contrivance holding a permit under the
provisions of Rule 10 of these Rules and Regulations, the appli-
cant shall be assessed a fee based upon the increase in total
horsepower rating, the increase in total fuel consumption ex-
pressed in thousands of British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour,
the increase in total electrical energy rating, the increase
in maximum horizontal inside cross sectional area or the in-
crease in total stationary container capacity resulting from
such alterations or additions, as described in the fee schedules
contained herein. Where there is no change or. is a decrease in
such ratings, the applicant shall pay only the amount of the
filing fee required herein.
After the provisions for granting permits as set forth in Chap-
ter 2, Division 20, of the Health and Safety Code and the Rules
and Regulations have been complied with, the applicant shall be
notified by the Air Pollution Control Officer, in writing, of
the fee to be paid for issuance of the permit to operate. Such
notice may be given by personal service or by deposit, postpaid,
in the United States mail and shall serve as a temporary permit
to operate for 30 days from the date of personal service or mail-
ing. Nonpayment of the fee within this period of time shall re-
sult in the automatic cancellation of the application.
In the event that more than one fee schedule is applicable to a
permit to operate, the governing schedule shall be that- which
results in the higher fee.
-------
A.3.14
Where a single permit to operate has been granted under Rule
10 prior to July 1, 1957, and where the Air Pollution Control
Officer would, since that date, have issued separate or re-
vised permits for each permit unit included in the original
application, the Air Pollution Control Officer may issue such
separate or revised permits without fees.
In the event that a permit to operate is granted by the Hearing
Board after denial by the Air Pollution Control Officer or after
the applicant deems his application denied, the applicant shall
pay the fee prescribed in the following schedules within 30 days
after the date of the decision of the Hearing Board. Nonpayment
of the fee within this period of time shall result in automatic
cancellation of the permit and the application. Such a fee shall
not be charged for a" permit to operate granted by the Hearing
Board for the duration of a variance.
A request for a duplicate permit to operate shall be made in
writing to the Air Pollution Control Officer within 10 days after
the destruction, loss or defacement of a permit to operate. A
fee of $2.00 shall be charged, except to any state or local gov-
ernmental agency or public district, for issuing a duplicate
permit to operate.
It is hereby determined that the cost of issuing permits and of
inspections pertaining to such issuance exceeds the fees pre-
scribed.
Schedule 1
ELECTRIC MOTOR HORSEPOWER SCHEDULE
Any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance where an
electric motor is used as the power supply shall be assessed a
permit fee based on the total rated motor horsepower of all
electric motors included in any article, machine, equipment or
other contrivance, in accordance with the following schedule:
Horsepower pee
up to and including 2% $ 40.00
greater than 2% but less than 5 100.00
5 or greater but less than 15 200.00
15 or greater but less than 45 300.00
45 or greater but less than 65 40o!oO
65 or greater but less than 125 500.00
125 or greater but less than 200 600.00
200 or greater 800.00
-------
A.3.15
Schedule 2
FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
Any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance in which
fuel is burned, with the exception of incinerators which are
covered in Schedule 4, shall be assessed a permit fee based
upon the design fuel consumption of the article, machine,
equipment or other contrivance expressed in thousands of
British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour, using gross heating
values of the fuel, in accordance with the following schedule;
1000 British Thermal Units Per Hour Fee
a up to and including 150 $ 40.00
b greater than 150 but less than 400 100.00
c 400 or greater but less than 650 200.00
d 650 or greater but less than 1500 300.00
e 1500 or greater but less than 2500 400.00
f 2500 or greater but less than 5000 500.00
g 5000 or greater but less than 15000 600.00
h 15000 or greater 800.00
Schedule 3
ELECTRICAL ENERGY SCHEDULE
Any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance which uses
electrical energy, with the exception of electric motors covered
in Schedule 1, shall be assessed a permit fee based on the total
kilovolt ampere (KVA) ratings, in accordance with the following
schedule:
Kolvolt Ampere Fee
a up to and including 20 $ 40.00
b greater than 20 but less than 40 100.00
c 40 or greater but less than 145 200.00
d 145 or greater but less than 450 300.00
e 450 or greater but less than 4500 400.00
f 4500 or greater but less than 14500 500.00
(g 14500 or greater but less than 45000 600.00
(h) 45000 or greater 800.00
-------
.A.3.16
Schedule 4
INCINERATOR SCHEDULE
Any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance designed
and used primarily to dispose of combustible refuse by wholly
consuming the material charged leaving only the ashes or resi-
due shall be assessed a permit fee based on the following sched-
ule of the maximum horizontal inside cross sectional area, in
square feet, of the primary combustion chamber:
Area, In Square Feet Fee
up to and including 3 $ 40.00
Greater than 3 but less than 4 100.00
or greater but less than 7 200.00
7 or greater but less than 10 300.00
10 or greater but less than 15 400.00
15 or greater but less than 23 500.00
23 or greater but less than 40 600.00
40 or greater 800.00
Schedule 5
STATIONARY CONTAINER SCHEDULE
Any stationary tank, reservoir, or other container shall be
assessed a permit fee based on the following schedule of cap-
acities in gallons or cubic equivalent:
Gallons Fee
up to and including 4000 $ 40.00
greater than 4000 but less than 10000 6o!oO
10000 or greater but less than 40000 100.00
40000 or greater but less than 100000 200.00
100000 or greater but less than 400000 300.00
400000 or greater but less than 1000000 400.00
1000000 or greater but less than 4000000 50o!oO
4000000 or greater 600.00
-------
A.3.17
Schedule 6
MISCELLANEOUS SCHEDULE
Any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance which is
not included in the preceding schedules shall be assessed a
permit fee of $40.00
Lunche, R. G. , E. E. Lemke, R. L. Weimer, J. Dorsey, J. A. Verssen (ed.).
Administration of the Permit System, Fourth Edition. Air Pollution Control
District, County of Los Angeles, California, January 1968, p. 74-89.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972
. 746761/4106
------- |